Form 15 Motion To Change 2008: Fill & Download for Free

Q: “How can I convince someone that climate change is not a hoax?”A: The first thing you need to do is learn what the debate is about.It is NOT whether or not “climate change is a hoax” or “global warming is real.”25,000 years ago the sites of present-day Boston and Chicago were under a sheet of ice which is believed to have been about a mile thick! So you can bet your sweet bippy that global warming is real!People who pretend the debate is about whether or not climate change is real are engaging in “straw man” argumentation:‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ straw man n. a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.The debate has never been about whether global warming is real. The debate is about its attribution, scale and effects.The best evidence is that its attribution is partially manmade, its scale is modest, and its effects are benign.Ironically, it is the very people ignoring that evidence who call those that disagree with them “climate change deniers.” That’s a reference to Holocaust denial, an especially odious and hateful form of irrationality. It’s an effort to “poison the well,” and stop rational debate:‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ poisoning the well n. committing a preemptive ad hominem attack against a debate opponent.There are many misconceptions about what the science shows. For instance, it is often claimed that “temperatures are rising faster than ever before.”That’s nonsense. The evidence is very strong that there's nothing at all unusual about the modest warming which the Earth has experienced over the last century.The fallacy that 20th century warming was unusual or even unprecedented is a product of statistical illiteracy. Paleoclimate information, inferred from indirect evidence like marine sediments, is naturally "smoothed," by processes which blend the evidence from consecutive decades, centuries, and millennia. As any engineer knows, when you smooth a graph, sharp fluctuations disappear.But many climate alarmists apparently don't know that. They see a paleoclimate graph and say, "look, it took ten thousand years to change by 3°, that's much slower than the 20th century!" But, of course, they have no way of knowing how many times it went up or down by 2° in a single decade during that ten thousand years.What's more, the current “Modern Climate Optimum” is very similar to the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Climate Optimum, and probably cooler than the mid-Holocene Warm Period, and much of the Eemian interglacial.If you still think that there’s something unusual about the Earth’s recent warming, take a look at these two graphs of globally averaged temperature:One of them is 1895–1946, the other is 1957–2008. The grid lines are at 5-year intervals.In the half-century covered by the 1895–1946 graph CO2 rose by only 15 ppmv (5.3%). In the half-century covered by the 1957–2008 graph CO2 rose by 70 ppmv (22.5%), i.e., a 4.2× greater CO2 forcing.Can you guess which graph is which?The x-axes are both a half-century in width (51 years, actually). One of them is 1895–1946, the other is 1957–2008. The grid lines are at 5-year intervals.The vertical offset between the two graphs is about 0.35°C. (The temporal offset is, of course, 1957–1895 = 62 years.)The two graphs look an awful lot alike, don’t they?You can easily reproduce these two graphs (very closely) with any tool which can produce graphs of HADCRUT3 temperatures, e.g., WoodForTrees.org.Note: it doesn't “work as well” with other temperature indexes.HADCRUT4 shows less 1895-1946 warming.BEST shows more more 1957-2008 warming.GISTEMP does both of those things. (When climate activists show only GISTEMP to "prove" their points, the're cherry-picking the temperature index which best supports them!)The differences between those various temperature indexes prove that we really don't know with certainty what the global temperature record looks like.In fact, the uncertainty is even worse than you'd guess from that comparison, because those four temperature indices are all based on (mostly) the same measurement data, which has a lot of quality problems, that introduce consistent errors in all four.Nevertheless, it is clear is that the Earth's average temperature is surprisingly stable. The temperature differences we're talking about are tiny. The “big” differences are mere fractions of a degree, temperature changes which are dwarfed by diurnal, seasonal, and spatial differences.Additionally, we have Greenland ice core records which indicate that in the past Greenland has experienced much larger abrupt, persistent temperature shifts, as rapid as several degrees per decade — and all of it natural.Excerpts:"...a jump in Greenland's air temperatures of 10-15 degrees (C) in just a few decades beginning about 14,700 years ago." [and]"... about 12,800 years ago ... abrupt cooling of some 5-9 degrees (C), also over a matter of decades."Even after accounting for “Arctic amplification” that's at least TEN TIMES as rapid as the (presumably mostly anthropogenic) "warming spurt" which we experienced in the 1980s to 1990s, and the similar (presumably mostly non-anthropogenic) warming spurt which we experienced in the 1920s to 1940s.The slight warming due to human activity is clearly innocuous. For instance, in the American heartland, farmers could fully compensate for 1 °C of warming just by planting about six days earlier:Thus far there's scant evidence that the small changes in globally averaged temperature caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions are harmful. Even though GHG emissions and levels have been rising monotonically for 2/3 of a century, none of the imagined major harms are actually happening.Coastal sea-level rise is not accelerating:In fact, the global sea-level trend is so tiny that in many places it is exceeded by local processes, like erosion, sedimentation, and vertical land motion. Here’s an example of one such place, where “sea-level rise” is negative, because the land is rising much faster than the ocean:"Extreme weather" isn't worsening, either. Hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes — none of them are getting worse.In fact, there is strong evidence that global warming is beneficial. Here’s a long excerpt from a National Geographic article:It’s not just natural ecosystems which benefit, either. CO2 is “plant food,” the source of the carbon in all carbon-based life. Agriculture benefits greatly from rising CO2 levels, a fact which has been known to science for over a century.Here’s a 1920(!) article from Scientific American, about the benefits of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (“carbonic acid gas”) for agriculture:Carbonic Acid Gas to Fertilize the AirThey called anthropogenic CO2 “the precious air fertilizer,” and from this photo you can certainly see why!I’ve compiled a short, balanced list of good resources, where you can learn more about CO2 and climate change, here:https://tinyurl.com/learnmore4

Here are 17 Interesting Movie Facts I was able to assemble:1). Movie: Titanic (1997)Fact: The 1997 movie Titanic cost more to make than the original ship itself[1][1][1][1] .The RMS Titanic was built back in the early 1900s for about $7.5 million. Adjust for inflation in 1997 dollars, that’s about $120 million. The movie on the other hand had a budget of $200 million. Several factors added to the budget, including the fact that James Cameron shot footage of the the actual ship’s wreck underwater and featured it in the film.2). Movie: Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen (2009)Fact: The visual effects house’s computers burned when rendering Devastator[2][2][2][2] .The Devastator sequence in Revenge of the Fallen was Industrial Light & Magic’s most challenging sequence until the time. The robot itself had around 80,000 parts and had the camera swirling around when covering its transformation. That and the additional resolution of IMAX resulted in computers exploding when rendering visual effects for the scene where the Devastator transforms and tears down the pyramids.3). Movie: Jurassic Park (1993)Fact: The movie has only 14 minutes of dinosaur effects[3][3][3][3] .Jurassic Park’s CGI was heralded as revolutionary for the time - it was the first case of CGI hyper-realism seen in a motion picture*. The entire CGI dinosaurs in the movie though made up for only 6 minutes of screen time. Combined with the animatronic effects, the dinosaurs had only around 14 minutes of screen time.4). Movie: Avatar (2009)Fact: Avatar was in development from as far back as 1994[4][4][4][4] .Director James Cameron wrote the movie’s script back in 1994 and intended to start filming in 1997 but couldn’t because technology had to catch up to his vision. To bring the movie to life, the production team had to create a new 3-D camera and a new virtual camera system that allowed them to shoot as if they were shooting in the virtual world. The complexity of the visual effects meant that every CGI frame took 47 hours to render.5). Movie: Iron Man (2008)Fact: Nick Fury’s cameo towards the end was a secret in vain.The movie crew tried hard to keep Samuel Jackson’s appearance in the post-credits scene a secret. His trailer was brought right inside the set. Jackson basically got out of the trailer, gave a couple of takes of his line and got back into the trailer which then left the set. The scene was also excluded from all previews. Despite this secrecy, details of the scene still leaked out.6). Movie: Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)Fact: Arnold’s Salary for the movie was around $21,000 per line of dialogue[5][5][5][5] .Arnold received a paycheck of $15 million for his role in the sequel to The Terminator. He spoke about 700 words in the movie which translates to $21,428 per word.7). Movie: The Matrix (1999)Fact: Will Smith turned down the lead role because he couldn’t understand the script.Will Smith was offered the part of Thomas Anderson a.k.a. Neo before Keanu Reeves took on the role. He turned it down and went on to star in Wild Wild West. He said about the role[6][6][6][6] :You know, The Matrix is a difficult concept to pitch. In the pitch, I just didn't see it. I watched Keanu's performance - and very rarely do I say this - but I would have messed it up. I would have absolutely messed up The Matrix. At that point I wasn't smart enough as an actor to let the movie be. Whereas Keanu was smart enough to just let it be.8). Movie Series: Harry Potter (2001–2011)Fact: Alan Rickman was the only one other than J. K. Rowling who knew of Snape’s love for Lily[7][7][7][7] .At the time of the first movie’s filming, J. K. Rowling had finished a couple of novels in the series. Severus Snape was seen as an antagonist by then. Rowling gave Rickman a hint of what would happen with his character later which helped Alan in humanizing his performance as Snape rather than play him as an outright antagonist.9). Movie: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)Fact: The movie marks the first cinematic appearance of Wonder Woman in film in 75 years.While Wonder Woman has been the subject of animated cartoons and movies and also TV Shows, some failed launches, a movie on her has been attempted as far back as the last two decades. With her appearance in Dawn of Justice, we see the first live-action version of her character on the big screen ever.10). Movie: The Matrix Reloaded (2003)Fact: The filmmakers constructed a 1.5 mile freeway for the movie’s chase scene[8][8][8][8] .The Wachowski Brothers shot for 3 months on a 1.5 mile stretch constructed for the movie’s freeway chase scene. The scene used (and destroyed) over 300 cars loaned to them by General Motors for the filming of the scene.The movie was also one of the first ones to pioneer virtual cinematography and the use of digital doubles entirely for some shots.11). Movie: Iron Man (2008)Fact: The movie had no script[9][9][9][9] .One of Marvel’s most highly rated movies was made without a script in place. The filmmakers had an outline of where to take things but no dialogues were hard written. A lot of it was improvised on the set including the famous Jericho Missile Speech, especially by Robert Downey Jr who thrived on this form of acting.Other cast members found it frustrating though. As Jeff Bridges put it:It freaked me out. I was very anxious. I like to be prepared. I like to know my lines, man, that's my school. Very prepared. That was very irritating, and then I just made this adjustment.12). Movie: The Matrix (1999)Fact: The company where Neo works gives a major hint about the movie’s premise.The company where Thomas Anderson is late for work is named Metacortex. Meta- means transcending or going beyond whereas Cortex means boundaries of the brain. Metacortex thus implies transcending the limits of your brain which is essential what Thomas Anderson goes on to do in the movie as Neo.13). Movie: The Dark Knight (2008)Fact: The Gotham Hospital destruction scene in the movie was realAverse to using CGI, Nolan blew up an abandoned Brach’s Candy factory that was set to be demolished. Explosives were kept inside the building that were detonated by the crew remotely.Heath Ledger also had a minor goof-up in the scene. When he initially presses the detonator, the explosions do not take off. This was a genuine error that happened because the crew was detonating the explosives from behind the scenes but it was some time before the explosions actually went off. Heath’s reaction in the moment was a bit of improvisation.14). Movie: Spider-Man (2002)Fact: The movie had a World Trade Center focused trailer that was removed from its promotional campaign.The said trailer had Spider-Man using his webs and capturing an escaping helicopter in between the two towers. In light of the 9 / 11 disaster preceding the campaign though, the trailer was withdrawn from promotions. It can still be viewed here.15). Movie: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)Fact: The movie showed the moon before the first man landed on it.The movie was released on April 2, 1968. The moon landing took place on July 20, 1969. Stanley Kubrick’s movie showed the moon in such detail that he became part of a popular conspiracy theory that suggested the moon-landing was fake and was filmed by him on set.16). Movie: Inception (2010)Fact: The first letters of the character’s first names combined form the word Dreams.The movie starsLeonardo DiCaprio as Domm (D)Cillian Murphy as Robert Fischer (R)Tom Hardy as Eames (E)Ellen Page as Ariadne OR Joseph Gordon Levitt as Arthur (A)Marion Cottilard as Mal (M)Ken Watanabe as Satio (S)17). Movie: Captain America: Civil War (2016)Fact: Spider-Man in the movie was CGI[10][10][10][10] .A complex deal was signed late into the movie’s production between Marvel and Sony that allowed Spider-Man to share screen with Marvel’s Cinematic Universe characters. Given his late inclusion, he was added digitally into the fight. In fact, Spider-Man, Giant-Man and Black Panther were 100% digital in the scene as mentioned by ILM Visual Effects Supervisor Russell Earl.Footnotes[1] Did you know that The budget to film “Titanic” was actually larger than the cost to…[1] Did you know that The budget to film “Titanic” was actually larger than the cost to…[1] Did you know that The budget to film “Titanic” was actually larger than the cost to…[1] Did you know that The budget to film “Titanic” was actually larger than the cost to…[2] How the giant-robot F/X in Transformers 2 nearly broke ILM. Seriously[2] How the giant-robot F/X in Transformers 2 nearly broke ILM. Seriously[2] How the giant-robot F/X in Transformers 2 nearly broke ILM. Seriously[2] How the giant-robot F/X in Transformers 2 nearly broke ILM. Seriously[3] 'Jurassic Park' Animator Shares How CGI Brought Dinosaurs To Life[3] 'Jurassic Park' Animator Shares How CGI Brought Dinosaurs To Life[3] 'Jurassic Park' Animator Shares How CGI Brought Dinosaurs To Life[3] 'Jurassic Park' Animator Shares How CGI Brought Dinosaurs To Life[4] The Not-So-Brief History of James Cameron's Avatar[4] The Not-So-Brief History of James Cameron's Avatar[4] The Not-So-Brief History of James Cameron's Avatar[4] The Not-So-Brief History of James Cameron's Avatar[5] Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Salary For 700 Words[5] Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Salary For 700 Words[5] Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Salary For 700 Words[5] Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Salary For 700 Words[6] How Will Smith Turned Down "The Matrix" - And Blew A Chance To Change Hollywood Forever[6] How Will Smith Turned Down "The Matrix" - And Blew A Chance To Change Hollywood Forever[6] How Will Smith Turned Down "The Matrix" - And Blew A Chance To Change Hollywood Forever[6] How Will Smith Turned Down "The Matrix" - And Blew A Chance To Change Hollywood Forever[7] J.K. Rowling Reveals Alan Rickman Severus Snape Secret[7] J.K. Rowling Reveals Alan Rickman Severus Snape Secret[7] J.K. Rowling Reveals Alan Rickman Severus Snape Secret[7] J.K. Rowling Reveals Alan Rickman Severus Snape Secret[8] The Most Insanely Complex Stunts from Science Fiction and Fantasy Films[8] The Most Insanely Complex Stunts from Science Fiction and Fantasy Films[8] The Most Insanely Complex Stunts from Science Fiction and Fantasy Films[8] The Most Insanely Complex Stunts from Science Fiction and Fantasy Films[9] Jeff Bridges Admits Iron Man Movie Had No Script[9] Jeff Bridges Admits Iron Man Movie Had No Script[9] Jeff Bridges Admits Iron Man Movie Had No Script[9] Jeff Bridges Admits Iron Man Movie Had No Script[10] That massive airport fight in Captain America: Civil War was almost entirely digital[10] That massive airport fight in Captain America: Civil War was almost entirely digital[10] That massive airport fight in Captain America: Civil War was almost entirely digital[10] That massive airport fight in Captain America: Civil War was almost entirely digital

The question is part political and part economics.Let us address both issues one by one and deal with only facts and not about assumptions.BJP Policies being disastrous for the economy :I am not a big fan of the party. Nor do I blindly support its economic policies. Demonetization was essentially a damp squib but as so much publicity was associated with it Government is still tying itself into knots trying to showcase the benefits.The economic loss is certainly there but would surely be made up over a period of time. Politically it did not cost the ruling party as subsequent electoral victories have shown.Verdict is not yet out on GST effects.The economic policies of the previous UPA Government were not stellar either.But can we believe FICCI or other industry chambers.They welcomed every budget of UPA I and UPA II.They welcome every budget of BJP also.But now they tell us that UPA policies were not good.Did they not understand it then and wisdom has dawned upon them only with the change in Government?The fact is that they know which side of their bread is buttered.BJP economic policies in my view are not much different from previous regime, notwithstanding the hype and hoopla in the media.Winning Elections and Market Moves :Markets like stability and ability of the Government to legislate.Elections in UP gave the ruling party additional seats in Rajya Sabha which enhanced their legislating ability. Markets shot up.Gujarat victory in itself may not mean much, but it will reaffirm the faith that GST and Demonetization have been accepted by the people and the Government can take further steps as well.Does the market move up only with BJP Victory ? :This is not true.Yes, there was an up move when UP results came in and the market fell when Bihar elections results were out.This is the NIFTy movement when Lok Sabha Election results came in on May 16, 2014.BJP had won an absolute majority on its own and Narendra Modi had led a spectacular campaign.Well, on May 16, it moved up to 7563 from a low of 7130 when the results were announced, but only two trading sessions later NIFTY was back to 7275.Almost a no event.The reason could be that market had already factored in a BJP victory.But it belies the theory that BJP winning election moves the market up.Now let us compare it with when UPA 2 came to power 5 years earlier.The result was declared on May 16, 2009.May 16, 2009 was a Saturday.NIFTY closed at 3671 on May 15 and climbed to a high of 4384 on Monday after results. Next day it touched a high of 4509 and closed at 4318.That is 17.62% gain in two sessions.This can be called a spectacular gain.Vote of Confidence 2008 :It does not matter to the market as to which party is at the helm. Only political stability matters.UPA government had faced a no confidence motion in parliament over US Nuclear deal. The date of this vote was July 22, 2008.As all of us know, year 2008 was a disaster for the markets all over the world.In an already grim market situation, the vote of confidence was a further destabilizing factor.Government won the vote and markets rebounded, international mayhem forgotten for the moment.Let us have a look at the NIFTy moves at that time:On July 16, 2008 , NIFTY touched a low of 3790.On July 22, the vote was won and two days later it closed at 4433.The gain from the low was 16.96% in one week.The markets had shown confidence in Manmohan Singh Government.Overall Market Performance :As already stated market does not care about the parties.Let us look at the NIFTY chart below:( Source : Moneycontrol website )UPA 2 came into being on May 22, 2009.The above NIFTY chart shows that NIFTY was at 4449 on May 29, 2009 and at 7318 when Mr. Narendra Modi took over.In 60 months of UPA Government NIFTY moved up by 64.48%.NIFTY was at 10333 on December 15, 2017.It is almost 43 months since BJP Government came into being.NIFTY has moved up 41.19 % in these 43 months.The market performance is almost same as it was in UPA period.Conclusion:Occasional up moves at election results time give the impression that BJP victory has got something to do with it.Congress victory had far better reaction in the markets as can be seen from the data presented.Market did not move up by more than 10% in one week with BJP victories whereas it happened twice in UPA time.Overall markets are in their own sustained run, unmindful of the politics.Facts do not lie.I hope this answers the question.My earlier answer can be seen here:Pramod Kumar's answer to Why did the Indian stock market rally after 2013? Is it because of Modi's win?Thanks for reading.