Diego Costa appeared to allay concerns over his fitness by training with Chelsea on Thursday. The striker was pictured on Chelsea TV making his way out to training as Guus Hiddink prepared his squad for Sunday’s FA Cup fourth-round tie at MK Dons. Costa scored the decisive goal before withdrawing from last Sunday’s Premier League win at Arsenal with a knee problem. The club television channel also reported that Ramires bade his farewells to his team-mates at Chelsea’s Surrey training base on Thursday after his move to Chinese Super League side Jiangsu Suning for a fee reported to be in excess of £20million. Meanwhile, New York Red Bulls defender Matt Miazga was undergoing a medical with the Premier League champions, according to Sky Sports News. Press Association
The police in Jamaica have launched an investigation into the circumstances that led to a fire at the St. Peter and Paul Catholic Church in St. Andrew early Sunday. Damages estimated at J$100,000The blaze was put out by firefighters from the Half-Way-Tree station. Damage has been estimated at J$100,000.The church’s pastor, Rev Father Donald Chambers, said he did not wish to speak directly to the matter as it was under investigation but said that he and members of his congregation were saddened by the incident. Altar damagedThe police report that early morning fire damaged the altar at the popular church, resulting in the morning service being moved to the church hall.The communications arm of the Jamaica Constabulary Force reported that around 1:20 am on Sunday a clergyman who lives on the property was awoken by the security guard on duty who reported that the altar, linens, vestments, and items close by were on fire. Feel violated and abused“We feel violated and abused, but we realize this is part of life. We have to ride the tide and get to the root of it. I told the congregation, “Listen, we are people of faith, we walk by faith and not by sight, so whatever happens, the church exists not because of a building, it exists because of the faith of the community’,” Chambers said.
Senator Harte. Wasn’t thereDONEGAL Senator Jimmy Harte is at the centre of Labour Party investigation tonight after his failure to show up at the Seanad led to a rare Government’s defeat.The Government lost a vote 27-23 on private members’ bill proposed by Senator Feargal Quinn dealing with upward-only rent reviews.It has been announced that the Labour Party chief whip Emmet Stagg is to seek meetings with Mr Harte and three others who were not present for the vote. Senators John Kelly, Denis Landy and and John Whelan were expected to be present and vote with the Government.Had they been present, the vote would have been tied 27-27 and the Government would have defeated the motion with the casting vote of Seanad Cathaoirleach Paddy Burke.Two former members of the Fine Gael parliamentary party, Paul Bradford and Fidelma Healy Eames, voted with the Opposition.A number of the Taoiseach’s nominees, Jillian Van Turnhout, Fiach Mac Conghail, Mary Ann O’Brien, Marie Louise O’Donnell and Katherine Zappone, also voted with the Opposition in an embarrassing night for Labour and the Government. GOVERNMENT DEFEATED IN SEANAD AFTER JIMMY HARTE AND LABOUR COLLEAGUES FAIL TO SHOW was last modified: October 2nd, 2013 by John2Share this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:defeat for governmentjimmy harteSeanad
SAN FRANCISCO — When a team has the worst record in the league, it’s time to experiment.Because of injuries and free agent defections, the Warriors (2-10) have gotten out to a disappointing start to the season. There may be no answers on the depleted roster, but coach Steve Kerr hasn’t stopped tinkering to find some sort of chemistry that could turn things around.Since Draymond Green returned from his finger injury, the Warriors’ starting lineup — D’Angelo Russell, Jordan Poole, Glenn …
The Colorado Plateau is a huge region covering parts of four states. It’s over a mile higher than its surroundings, but its layers are remarkably flat. How did this region, littered with marine fossils, rise into the sky? Three American scientists writing in Nature last week believe they have a mechanism:1 it heated from underneath and rose like a cake. Explaining a vast heterogeneous region like the Colorado Plateau is tricky. The plateau includes the Grand Canyon and the other amazing landforms of the Four Corners Region – Bryce Canyon, Zion, Canyonlands, Arches, Capitol Reef, Grand Staircase, Lake Powell, Petrified Forest, Dinosaur, and numerous other local parks. There are mountain ranges, sediment layers miles deep, meandering river gorges, faults, volcanoes and areas where strata have been tilted 90° laterally for many miles. Moreover, this plateau sits within the middle of a tectonic plate. It’s not at the margins where most of the dramatic geological changes on earth takes place. “The forces that drove rock uplift of the low-relief, high-elevation, tectonically stable Colorado Plateau are the subject of long-standing debate,” they acknowledged. This vast area in Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona “experienced ~2 km of rock uplift without significant internal deformation.” That fact is clearly evident at the lookouts of the Grand Canyon. Geological layers extend as flat as a pancake as far as the eye can see. It takes a lot of delicately-balanced force to lift up a region this large without deforming it. Imagine how you would you try to pick up a Guinness World Record layer cake the size of a city block and keep it from breaking.2 To try to get a grip on complex systems, scientists employ models. These allow them to focus on certain aspects they deem important without getting bogged down in details. The danger is that different scientists may disagree on the salient features needing to be explained. In addition, uncooperative details cannot be ignored; they might falsify the model. Roy, Jordan and Pederson began by pointing out flaws in previous models. Note: the “Laramide orogeny” is a mountain-building episode that supposedly built the Rockies and other mountain ranges from Alaska to Mexico. It is presumed to have occurred in the mid-Cenozoic between 80 and 35 million years ago. Isostasy refers to the floating of crust on mantle; epeirogeny means large-scale crustal deformation. The Basin and Range province includes the parallel mountain ranges and valleys of Nevada to the west. The Cenozoic era follows the Cretaceous and is typically dated 65 million years ago to the present.Previous ideas for Colorado Plateau rock and/or surface uplift fall into four categories: early- to mid-Cenozoic Laramide-orogeny-related shortening; mid- to late-Cenozoic epeirogeny; stream incision, and isostatic responses; and dynamic uplift. Here we show that even if the contributions from minor Laramide deformation and flexural isostatic responses to extension at the plateau margins and to net Cenozoic erosion are removed, there is >1.6 km of residual rock uplift that must be explained by post-Laramide tectonic processes. Dynamic uplift mechanisms can drive only 400�500 m of this residual amount, leaving approx 1.2 km of unexplained rock uplift.Then they introduced their model:We propose thermal perturbation and re-equilibration as a general mechanism for driving rock uplift within plate interiors, particularly in regions of thicker, more depleted lithosphere adjacent to zones of extension, such as the Colorado Plateau. Our model differs from previous ideas of thermal modification of the Colorado Plateau in that it relies on a post-Laramide process that is triggered by the removal of the Farallon slab and the onset of thinning in the Basin and Range and Rio Grande rift provinces. We show that thermal perturbation following mid-Tertiary removal of the Farallon slab can account for the majority of the observed rock uplift of the Colorado Plateau and, additionally, that this mechanism explains the observed rates of encroachment of the onset of Cenozoic magmatism onto the plateau.The bulk of their paper explained the details of their model. It is important to realize that no model of a historical episode can be proven, or even adequately tested. At best, scientists can try to find data consistent with it, and see if the overall scenario explains the bulk properties of the system. A good model should also make predictions.3 These scientists felt that by having a slab of rock slide away under the plateau, leading to increased heating from the mantle, they could explain the 2 km rise. A model is never the final answer, however. “Future, more detailed, comparisons with phase relationships in a melting model must incorporate variable chemistry and hydration of source regions and changes in both chemical and thermal buoyancy during and following the mid-Tertiary ignimbrite flare-up,” they said. They did not return to the observation that the layers are flat and largely undeformed.1. Roy, Jordan and Pederson, “Colorado Plateau magmatism and uplift by warming of heterogeneous lithosphere,” Nature 459, 978-982 (18 June 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08052.2. Note also that this is just the latest uplift. Geologists believe this vast area rose and sank several times without significant deformation. In the Grand Canyon, for instance, the Hermit formation (marine) is very flat along the Bright Angel Trail. But the Coconino Sandstone, supposedly consisting of petrified sand dunes from a desert, sits just as flat on top of it. Above those, the Kaibab and Toroweap limestones sit as testaments to another undersea episode. Thousands of feet of more layers from alternating wet and dry periods are above those. It stretches credulity to think that these layers bobbed up and down repeatedly without deforming.3. The fallacy of “affirming the consequent” renders many predictions dubious: “p predicts q; q occurs; therefore p caused q.” Just because a prediction is confirmed, it does not guarantee that no other model could account for it. In fact, there could be an infinite number of other theories that could account for the phenomenon. This is what caused Karl Popper to jettison prediction as a criterion of science and propose falsification instead (but falsification only lasted a couple of decades before other philosophers discounted its value in science).One of the things CEH wishes to educate its readers on is how to be a good skeptic. Laypeople tend to exalt anything published in a scientific paper as something to honor just because it is found in a scientific journal. You wouldn’t give a politician unqualified honor, so don’t give it to a scientist. He needs to prove his case. Learn to be bold. Examine, test, reason, and question. Even if you don’t understand all the jargon, you can learn to discern baloney and flawed reasoning. Skeptics will find many reasons to doubt this model. For one, it is married to the geologic column and evolutionary timescale. This forced them to tie phenomena to an artificial system rather than let the data speak for themselves. They could not dare to stray outside the paradigm. Getting something to fit within a paradigm, however, is not the same thing as explaining it in the real world. Another problem is that they employed question-begging terms masquerading as scientific explanations. For instance, look at the term orogeny (mountain-creating). What made the Rocky Mountains? Answer: the Laramide Orogeny. This is equivalent to answering a child’s question about why a ball falls by saying “because of gravity.” What’s gravity?, the child asks. Answer: A force that makes balls fall. Should the kid be satisfied to learn that the ball falls because it falls, or mountains form because mountain-building forces formed them? But that is how a previous model explained it: the plateau lifted up dynamically because of “dynamic uplift.” Even a kid would know that’s a dodge. Giving it a proper name like Laramide doesn’t help. Example: What ancient people built this cliff dwelling? Answer: the Anasazi. Well, since the word Anasazi means “ancient ones,” the answer provides no information, even though it sounds sophisticated. Another cause for skepticism is the ad hoc nature of the model. The scientists imagined a plate slipping under the middle of another plate, that caused heating, and then the whole region rose 2 kilometers. How convenient. Have they really explained it, or did they just make up a story to get their model to work? Another ad hoc speculation not mentioned in this paper but stated in many Grand Canyon guidebooks is that huge time periods are missing between the layers. The entire Ordovician and Silurian systems are not found in Grand Canyon, for example. You can take one step on the Bright Angel Trail between conformable layers and they will tell you that you just stepped across 100 million years of “missing” geological time. What? The explanation does not rely on empirical evidence, but on the absence of evidence! There are several places where strata are missing. Almost a billion years is missing between the Great Unconformity and the overlying Tapeats Sandstone. No evidence for the erosion that would be expected over such vast periods of time can be found. Perhaps the biggest cause for skepticism, though, is the ignoring of important details of the Colorado Plateau that would falsify the theory (see Glittering Generalities). Their model explained nothing about the lack of deformation. How could these layers be lifted up 2 kilometers without buckling? Many strata in the Grand Canyon cover hundreds of square miles – some of them, indeed, extend across much of North America. This is comparable to a sheet of paper several miles in extent being lifted up without tearing or tilting. Explaining how these layers could rise and fall over and over without deforming is arguably more important than explaining how they rose at all. Isn’t that the question they should be asking? In addition, the lack of erosion between many of the layers should falsify the belief that they were laid down over millions of years. And the fact that faults and folds extend through all the layers, but don’t stop halfway up, makes the hypothesis of vast time periods implausible. Numerous other evidences indicate that the strata in the Colorado Plateau must have been laid down rapidly and catastrophically, but these were all completely ignored in their effort to present a model that comports with the secular evolutionary paradigm, only because Charlie & Charlie (Darwin and Lyell) needed lots of time for their slow, gradual processes to build scientists out of slime. When reading details of a scientific paper, don’t lose sight of the belief system that generates the explanation. This explanation was restricted to the secular evolutionary paradigm. It has no necessary correlation, therefore, to the true history of the world. Moreover, it did not honestly deal with the alternatives and with many falsifying details. It ignored voices of anyone outside the paradigm. Jargon or not, math or not, such self-fulfilling, paradigm-preserving projects should not be honored with the noble name of science.(Visited 28 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
A month after the Maharashtra Assembly election results were announced on October 24, the political impasse in the State seems to have reached a climax, albeit with a stunning overnight twist. In less than twelve hours, the focus shifted from the NCP-Congress-Shiv Sena alliance that was all set to form a government, to the BJP, as Devendra Fadnavis took oath as the Chief Minister early on Saturday along with NCP leader Ajit Pawar as Deputy CM.Here’s what transpired in the month leading up to the event:October 24: Divided outcomesElections to the 288-member Maharashtra Assembly were held on October 21. Allies BJP and Shiv Sena emerge as the two largest parties in the results, but both parties see a dip in the number of seats won and their vote share. Meanwhile, the NCP and the Congress are net gainers, with 54 and 44 seats respectively.Although a BJP-Shiv Sena government with Mr. Fadnavis at the helm seems like a done deal, the Sena insists on a rotational chief ministership. The BJP, however, maintains that it does not intend to share the post.October 25-29: the early signs of turmoilShiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray says he will only have discussions with BJP national president Amit Shah.Mr. Fadnavis denies acceding to the Sena’s demands. “I have confirmed with Amit Shah and he told me that the BJP has not given any assurance for the Chief Minister’s post for two-and-a-half years (each for the BJP and Sena),” he says.The two parties, in a bid to boost their numbers, enlist the support of MLAs from small outfits and independents.The Congress and the NCP stick to their Oppositional role. “We are entering the new Assembly with not only increased strength but also renewed resolve to fight the anti-people policies of the government to the end,” says Nationalist Congress Party’s Mumbai unit president Nawab Malik. Ajit Pawar, NCP leader and nephew of Sharad Pawar, says that his party and the Congress will remain in the Opposition.October 30- November 2: unlikely alliance on the cards?On October 30, former Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan says the Congress high command shall decide on a possible alliance between the Congress and Shiv Sena: “These are ifs and buts… in case we do receive such a proposal from the Shiv Sena… To the best of my knowledge, no such proposal has come to us,” says the senior Congressman.Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala adds to the uncertainty. “Maharashtra is an evolving situation and in such an evolving situation, Congress general secretary in-charge Mallikarjun Kharge and the leaders of the State will decide. It won’t be proper to comment on this any further,” he says.Meanwhile, Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut says that he had a meeting with NCP chief Sharad Pawar. The latter however dismisses it as a routine visit.Mr. Pawar also met senior Congress leaders in the State on October 31. The leaders then visited Delhi to discuss the party’s stand if the Shiv Sena stakes claim to form the government. The Congress is yet to receive an official proposal from the Sena.Sanjay Raut also says that the Shiv Sena can form a government on its own, without formally mentioning a possible alliance between the Congress-NCP and Shiv Sena.While Congress’ Prithviraj Chavan briefs party president Sonia Gandhi, senior leader M. Veerappa Moily says they are open to supporting the Sena.November 3 – November 12: numerous upheavalsThe Shiv Sena steps up its rhetoric again with Mr. Raut claiming to have the support of up to 175 MLAs. A Sena Chief Minister would soon take oath at Shivaji Park, he claims on November 4.Meanwhile, the BJP tries to bring Shiv Sena back to the table by offering two key portfolios.In an important development, NCP chief Sharad Pawar meets Congress president Sonia Gandhi on November 4. Though the Congress didn’t comment on the meeting, sources claim Ms. Gandhi has reservations about Sena’s secular credentials.Finally, NCP spokesperson Nawab Malik says that the party is ready to be an alternative partner in the government.On November 7, the BJP meets Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to discuss the situation in the State. The Governor later invites the party to form a government.However, the party is unable to carve up the requisite numbers and Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis resigns. Mr. Koshyari then calls NCP and Shiv Sena to stake their claim, but denies extra time to Sena. “We (Shiv Sena) were asked if we were willing to form the government. We have started talks with Congress and NCP. We have informed the Governor we have the willingness but the duration given to us is less. The process needs another 48 hours but he has refused us extra time,” says Aditya Thackeray.Shiv Sena and Congress put up their MLAs in hotels in Bandra and Jaipur respectively, amidst allegations of poaching by the BJP. The party denies the horse-trading allegations.On November 12, President’s rule is imposed in the State.November 12- November 15: consolidating tiesThe Shiv Sena moves the Supreme Court against the President’s Rule in the State. The three parties move closer to a formal alliance, working out a Common Minimum Programme. Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray says he will study unusual alliances in the country for information, and maintains that it is the BJP that caused their alliance to fall apart.Mr. Pawar says there is no need for mid-term polls and the post of Chief Minister shall lie with Shiv Sena.Shiv Sena announces that it will not attend the national NDA meet in Delhi and has parted ways with the BJP.November 15-November 22: coming to fruitionThe word ‘secularism’ becomes a bone of contention between the Congress-NCP and Shiv Sena, with the latter inclined to drop it from the CMP. Nonetheless, the three parties move closer to forming a government in an alliance called the ‘Mahavikas Aghadi’.Sharad Pawar meets Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Parliament ahead of announcing Uddhav Thackeray for the Chief Minister’s post. Senior BJP leaders say the meeting involved talks on the political situation in Maharashtra and that it has reignited hope that the party is not completely sidelined.On the eve of November 22, the tri-party alliance announces that Uddhav Thackeray is set to assume chief ministership of the State.November 23: a stunning turn of eventsBJP leader Devendra Fadnavis and NCP leader Ajit Pawar take oath as Maharashtra Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister respectively.“The State is suffering from farmer problems. The instability in the State is not good for the development of the State. It was important to form the government. Ajit dada came with us and we approached the Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari and claimed to form the government. The President’s rule was removed and we decided to take oath today itself,” says Mr. Fadnavis, while talking to news agency ANI at Raj Bhavan.President Ram Nath Kovind revokes President’s Rule in the State in a notification signed at 5.47 am.
“The Government of Jamaica is well aware of the closely bound interaction between energy security and food security. Prime Minister, the Most Hon. Andrew Holness, says that for agriculture to maximise its full potential, high energy costs must be kept in check.“We cannot speak of transforming and modernising our agricultural sector without addressing how to alleviate those high energy costs,” he noted.“The Government of Jamaica is well aware of the closely bound interaction between energy security and food security.We are now developing an energy ecosystem that is diverse, environmentally sensitive and affordable,” he added.The Prime Minister was addressing the opening ceremony of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Regional Conference for Latin America and the Caribbean on March 7 at the Montego Bay Convention Centre, St. James.He noted that the Government has a target to meet 30 per cent of the country’s energy needs through renewable sources by 2030, and “we are currently at 18 per cent and on track to achieve that 30 per cent”.He said that the Ministry of Science, Energy and Technology will also explore the utilisation of biofuels to further diversify the country’s energy sources.The Prime Minister argued that the possibilities for the agricultural sector greatly increase when electricity and other energy-related costs are less vulnerable to volatile oil prices.He argued that with diversified energy sources, small farmers and agro-processors, and others who are employed in the agricultural sector will benefit from reduced operational costs through the use of renewable energy.Such investment, he said, will serve to boost the agricultural sector, which he noted is important for rural development and economic growth.“This is significant, because as empirical data have shown, in Jamaica overall, economic growth is strongly positively correlated with the growth in the agricultural sector,” the Prime Minister said.“We are addressing the crucial nexus between energy and food security and finding solutions to secure both to put these two sectors in sync, which is a necessary component for sustainable development,” the Prime Minister added. Prime Minister, the Most Hon. Andrew Holness, says that for agriculture to maximise its full potential, high energy costs must be kept in check. Story Highlights He noted that the Government has a target to meet 30 per cent of the country’s energy needs through renewable sources by 2030, and “we are currently at 18 per cent and on track to achieve that 30 per cent”.