quinta-feira, 2 de março de 2017

Por Que o Livro Ética Protestante de Weber Resiste Apesar de Tese Falsa Já Bastante Derrubada


Eu já li o livro "Ética Protestante e o "Espírito" do Capitalismo", de Max Weber. E para mim parece um livro de alguém que resolveu escrever o que pensa sem qualquer critério científico, Jogou ideias soltas sem qualquer base histórica.

Esse livro de Weber foi originalmente dois artigos que ele publicou em uma revista do qual era editor. Assim não passou pelo crivo de nenhum historiador. Quinze anos depois, Weber resolveu colocar os textos em forma de livro, emendando-os.

Para mim não chega nem a ser um livro o que ele escreveu. É um panfleto, daqueles que a gente encontra na rua, com teses que parecem corretas, mas são completamente erradas. Por sinal, o livro todo é baseado em argumentações meio bobas de Benjamin Franklin que Weber usa como muleta para qualquer argumentação. 

Tantos historiadores do passado e atuais já desmontaram o livro. Mas ele continua por aí, sendo estudado e respeitado. Por que será?

Eu costumo, quando leio um livro, fazer comentários em lápis do lado. Não tem livro que eu tenha feita mais comentários depreciativos do que esse livro de Weber, mesmo porque ele faz muitos comentários depreciativos para defender sua tese sem sustentação. Se eu tivesse que fazer uma crítica do livro de Weber, eu teria que escrever um livro, pois Weber tem inúmeras passagens que são tão frágeis (por vezes dezenas em apenas uma página) que facilmente se pode fazer críticas demolidoras.

Hoje, leio um texto sobre o assunto no site The Catholic Herald.

Vejamos:

The Catholic work ethic
by 

The idea that Protestants invented capitalism is a myth. In fact the system dates back to the 9th century and the great monastic estates
I was raised on the glories of the Reformation. Like all Lutherans, each Sunday I was further enlightened about Catholic wickedness and about how Martin Luther had set us free to think for ourselves and to seek knowledge, thereby bringing about the modern world. Although I had outgrown much of this by the time I entered graduate school, once there I was instructed in depth and detail in the gospel of Max Weber (1864–1920): that Protestantism gave birth to a unique work ethic that spawned capitalism, and thus it is that modernity is a direct result of the Reformation.
Even now, Weber’s thesis of the “Protestant work ethic” lives on among sociologists, being recounted in detail in every introductory textbook on the market. According to Weber, Protestants dominated the capitalist economy of the West because of all the world’s religions only Protestantism provided a moral vision that led people to restrain their material consumption while vigorously seeking wealth.
Weber argued that prior to the Reformation restraint on consumption was invariably linked to asceticism and, hence, to condemnations of commerce. Conversely, the pursuit of wealth was linked to profligate consumption. Either cultural pattern was inimical to capitalism. Weber claimed that the Protestant ethic shattered these traditional linkages, creating a culture of frugal entrepreneurs content to systematically reinvest profits in order to pursue ever greater wealth; and therein lies the key to capitalism and the path to modernity.
Perhaps because it was such an elegant thesis, it was widely accepted – despite the fact that it was so obviously wrong. As a great deal of subsequent research has demonstrated, Catholic areas of western Europe did not lag in their industrial development. And fully developed capitalism had appeared in Europe many centuries before the Reformation.
As Hugh Trevor-Roper explained: “The idea that large-scale industrial capitalism was ideologically impossible before the Reformation is exploded by the simple fact that it existed.” The celebrated Fernand Braudel complained that “all historians have opposed this tenuous theory [the Protestant ethic], although they have not managed to be rid of it once and for all. Yet it is clearly false. The northern countries took over the place that earlier had been so long and brilliantly occupied by the old capitalist centres of the Mediterranean. They invented nothing, either in technology or business management.” Moreover, during their critical period of economic development, these northern centres of capitalism were Catholic, not Protestant – the Reformation still lay well into the future.
Everyone writing on capitalism accepts that it rests upon free markets, secure property rights and free (uncoerced) labour. By this definition, capitalism was a very Catholic invention: it first appeared in the great Catholic monastic estates, way back in the 9th century.
Many of the very early Church Fathers shared the views prevalent in the Greco-Roman world that commerce is a degrading activity and, at best, involves great moral risk – that it is very difficult to avoid sin in the course of buying and selling. However, soon after the conversion of Constantine in 312, attitudes toward commerce began to mellow, leading Augustine to teach that wickedness was not inherent in commerce, but that, as with any occupation, it was up to the individual to live righteously.
This helped bring about the eventual deep involvement of the Church in the birth of capitalism, when its earliest forms began to appear in about the 9th century in the great estates belonging to monastic orders. Because of the immense increases in agricultural productivity that resulted from such significant innovations, such as the switch to horses, the heavy mouldboard plough and the three-field system, the monastic estates were no longer limited to mere subsistence agriculture. Instead, they began to specialise in particular crops or products and to sell these at a profit, allowing them to purchase their other needs, which led them to initiate a cash economy. They also began to reinvest their profits to increase their productive capacity, and as their incomes continued to mount, this led many monasteries to became banks, lending to the nobility – as they did to so many Crusaders.
As Randall Collins noted, this was not merely a sort of “proto” capitalism involving only the “institutional preconditions for capitalism … but a version of the developed characteristics of capitalism itself”. Collins referred to this as “religious capitalism”, adding that the “dynamism of the medieval economy was primarily that of the Church”.
Throughout the medieval era the Church was by far the largest landowner in Europe, and its liquid assets and annual income not only far surpassed that of the wealthiest king, but probably that of all of Europe’s nobility added together. Many Cistercian houses farmed 100,000 acres, and one in Hungary had fields totalling 250,000 acres.
Until this era, the estates were largely self-sufficient. But with the great gains in productivity came specialisation and trade. Some estates only produced wine, others grew only several grains, some only raised cattle or sheep – the Cistercians at Fossanova specialised in raising fine horses.
Meanwhile, the rapid increase in agricultural surpluses encouraged the founding and growth of towns and cities – indeed, many of the monastic centres themselves became cities. Writing about the great monastery of St Gall in Switzerland, Christopher Dawson noted that by 820 it was “no longer the simple religious community envisaged by the old monastic rules, but a vast complex of buildings, churches, workshops, store-houses, offices, schools and alms-houses, housing a whole population of dependents, workers and servants like the temple cities of antiquity”.
When estates grew into small cities and sustained many scattered outposts, they evolved a more sophisticated and far-seeing management. Unlike the nobility, monks’ affairs were not subject to the vagaries of inherited leadership. The essential meritocracy built into the orders could ensure a succession of talented and dedicated administrators having the capacity to pursue plans of long duration. As the historian Georges Duby put it, the new era forced monastic “administrators to turn their attention to the domestic economy, to reckon up, to handle figures, to calculate profits and losses, to think about ways and means of expanding production”.
Attendant to specialisation was a second development, a shift from a barter to a cash economy. It simply was too complicated and unwieldy for a winemaking estate, say, to barter for its other needs, transporting goods hither and yon. It proved far more efficient to sell its wine for cash and then buy whatever was needed from the most convenient and economical sources.
Beginning late in the 9th century, the reliance on cash spread rapidly. In 1247, a Franciscan chronicler wrote of his order’s estate in Burgundy that the monks “do not sow or reap, nor do they store anything in barns, but they send wine to Paris, because they have a river right at hand that goes to Paris, and they sell for a good price, from which they get all their food and all of the clothes they wear.”
In contrast, the estates of Greco-Roman times were entirely, or primarily, self-sufficient, subsistence operations. Moreover, they were so unproductive that a wealthy family required huge estates in order to live in style. But, even in its earliest stages, capitalism brought immense wealth to orders having only modest fields and flocks.
Meanwhile, the great monasteries began to utilise a hired labour force, more productive than either the monks or tenants required to provide periods of compulsory labour. Thus, as “religious capitalism” unfolded, monks still faithfully performed their duties, but aside from those engaged in liturgy, the rest now “worked” as executives and foremen. In this way, the medieval monasteries came to resemble remarkably “modern” firms – well administered and quick to adopt the latest technological advances.
Traditional societies celebrate consumption while holding work in contempt. This is true not only of the privileged elite, but even of those whose days are spent in toil. Notions such as the “dignity” of labour or the idea that work is a virtuous activity were incomprehensible in ancient Rome or in any other pre-capitalist society.
Rather, just as spending is the purpose of wealth, the preferred approach to work is to have someone else do it and, failing that, to do as little as possible. In China, the Mandarins grew their fingernails as long as they could (even wearing silver sheaths to protect them from breaking) in order to make it evident that they did no labour.
Consequently, capitalism seems to require and to encourage a remarkably different attitude toward work – to see it as intrinsically virtuous and also to recognise the virtue of restricting one’s consumption. Of course, Max Weber identified this as the Protestant ethic, so-called because he believed it to be absent from Catholic culture. But Weber was wrong.
Belief in the virtues of work and of simple living did accompany the rise of capitalism, but this was centuries before Martin Luther was born. Despite the fact that many, perhaps even most, monks and nuns were from the nobility and wealthiest families, they honoured work not only in theological terms, but also by actually doing it. In Randall Collins’s words, they “had the Protestant ethic without Protestantism”.
The virtue of work was made evident in the 6th century by St Benedict, who wrote in his famous Rule: “Idleness is the enemy of the soul. Therefore the brothers should have specified periods for manual labour as well as prayerful reading … When they live by the labour of their hands, as our fathers and the Apostles did, then they are really monks.”
This commitment to manual labour distinguishes Christian asceticism from that found in other religious cultures, where piety is associated with rejection of the world and its activities. In contrast with Eastern holy men, for example, who specialise in meditation and live by charity, medieval Christian monastics lived by their own labour, sustaining highly productive estates. If this was not capitalism in all its glory, it was certainly close enough.
This is an extract from Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History (Templeton Press)

quarta-feira, 1 de março de 2017

Vídeo: Prêmio Nobel de Física Detona "Mudança Climática"



Espero que entendam inglês. O vídeo é ótimo. E ele define a ideia de "mudança climática" como religião e não ciência.




sexta-feira, 17 de fevereiro de 2017

Grande Michael Novak Faleceu Hoje. Tive o Prazer de Conhecê-lo Pessoalmente. Gênio.


Michael Novak, o gênio, o grande amigo de João Paulo II e de Ronald Reagan, o defensor do capitalismo dentro da Doutrina da Igreja, o enorme formador de opinião dentro e fora dos Estados Unidos, faleceu hoje, para minha tristeza.

Ele tinha muito ainda a nos ensinar.

Tive o inesquecível prazer de conhecê-lo pessoalmente, de trocar ideias sobre capitalismo e a Igreja, e de, o que mais orgulho, de vê-lo debater um artigo meu. Obviamente, não perdi a oportunidade, e pedi para ele autografar o livro dele que tenho.

Inesquecível.

Aqui vai minha homenagem e condolências a família, que ele tanto amava e sempre mencionava sua esposa em suas palestras.

Rezemos por ele. Descanse em paz, grande Michael Novak, o mundo sentirá muito sua falta.

Vejam texto da Catholic University.

Catholic University Remembers Michael Novak as Influential Thinker, Prolific Writer, and Beloved Mentor


Michael Novak dies at age 83

Photo by Patrick G. Ryan — www.snarkinfested.comMichael Novak dies at age 83
(Washington, D.C.) Michael Novak, groundbreaking author, philosopher, theologian, and faculty member of Catholic University’s Tim and Steph Busch School of Business and Economics since last August, is remembered at the University as one of the country’s most influential thinkers and a mentor to business students and faculty, among many others.
Novak, who died Feb. 17, 2017, at the age of 83, joined The Arthur and Carlyse Ciocca Center for Principled Entrepreneurship last year as a distinguished visiting fellow. He taught Special Topics in Management and gave a series of lectures on campus on the topic of human ecology.
Novak, whose 1982 book The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism changed the public conversation about the benefits of capitalism, was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 1994, and served as Ambassador to the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1981 and 1982.
Novak studied at Catholic University in 1958 and 1959 and had lectured at the University several times prior to last year’s appointment. University President John Garvey remembered him as “a man of great intellectual honesty.”
“Unlike some scholars, Michael Novak made it a point to reflect on new and different topics, always with a fresh and dynamic perspective,” Garvey said. “We are immensely grateful that he could end his academic life as he began it, as a member of our community.”
Andreas Widmer, director of The Arthur and Carlyse Ciocca Center for Principled Entrepreneurship, recalled Novak as a mentor and described him as the “founding father” of the discussion about the intersection of faith and economic activity.
“My colleagues and I have been touched by his kindness and humility. He was quick to encourage others and was generous with his time,” Widmer commented. “You would never have known from working with him that this was a man who had counseled popes and changed the course of history. It meant so much to me this past year to have Michael, who has long been a mentor and friend, beside me as a colleague at Catholic University.”
In a 2014 address at Catholic University Novak described the University as “a sacred place” and talked with fondness about the faculty members he had studied under, among them Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, Monsignor Robert Trisco, Rev. Gene Burke, Monsignor Joseph Fenton, and Rev. Francis J. Connell.
Upon his appointment to Catholic University as a visiting fellow, Novak commented on the University’s commitment to promote Catholic Social Doctrine as a means to human flourishing.  “If, as a teacher you want to reach the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, many of whom are poor, where better to be?”
In 2006, Novak and his wife, Karen Laub-Novak, established two scholarship funds to support philosophy graduate students, one in his name for students working on the intersection of philosophy and religion or public policy and one in her name for students interested in the philosophy of beauty.
The author of more than 50 books who was highly regarded for his religious scholarship and intellectual independence, Novak shared his insights into the spiritual foundations of economic and political systems and the moral ideals of democratic capitalism in syndicated columns and innumerable lectures, articles, and commentaries.
Novak wrote on topics as varied as capitalism, human rights, labor union history, sports, peace, families, and the role of churches in a pluralistic world. His books have been translated into every major Western language, as well as Bengali, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese.
He considered his greatest honor to be that Pope John Paul II called him a friend, as did Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan.
The son of Michael J. Novak and Irene Sakmar, Novak was born on Sept. 9, 1933, in Johnstown, Pa. Discerning a call to the priesthood, Novak entered Holy Cross Seminary of the Congregation of Holy Cross at Notre Dame at the age of 14. He earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Stonehill College in Easton, Mass., graduating summa cum laude in 1956.
Later he earned a Bachelor of Sacred Theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, graduating cum laude in 1958. He then transferred to Catholic University, where he studied for two semesters, forming a lifelong attachment to the University.
He taught at Harvard, Stanford, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Ave Maria universities and was awarded 27 honorary degrees, including one from Catholic University in 2015.
In his name, the Acton Institute, a Michigan-based think tank, created the Novak Award, which honors outstanding scholarly research concerning the relationship between religion, economic freedom, and the free and virtuous society.
Three Catholic University professors have been recipients of the award: Andrew Abela in 2009, then an associate professor of marketing and founding dean of the school of business and economics, who now serves as University provost; Catherine Pakaluk in 2015 who joined The Busch School faculty a year later as an assistant professor of economics; and Maximillian Torres in 2003 who joined the faculty as associate professor and director of management in 2014. 

To read Novak’s biography, visit http://michaelnovak.net/biography/.

quarta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2017

Mais um Caso de Cientistas Manipulando Dados para Provar Aquecimento Global



O vídeo acima apenas explica muito por cima o caso. O jornal Daily Mail foi bem mais detalhista, sobre como a organização Administração Oceânica e Atmosférica dos Estados Unidos (NOAA) manipulou os dados para convencer políticos do mundo todo que há aquecimento global no planeta durante os Acordos de Paris.

Vejam abaixo, parte do que disse o Daily Mail, leiam todo o artigo clicando aqui.:

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data 

  • - The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
  • - It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
  • - America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
  • - The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data


  • By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday

    The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
    A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
    The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
    But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
    It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
    His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
    His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.
    In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
    Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.
    A blatant attempt to intensify paper's impact 
    Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.
    The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
    NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
    Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.
    The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.
    The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.
    A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.
    Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
    Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.
    The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.
    Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.
    ome scientists argued that the existence of the pause meant the world’s climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, so that future warming would be slower. One of them, Professor Judith Curry, then head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said it suggested that computer models used to project future warming were ‘running too hot’.
    However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC’s claim about the pause, it concluded, ‘was no longer valid’.
    The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data’.
    One American magazine described the paper as a ‘science bomb’ dropped on sceptics.
    Its impact could be seen in this newspaper last month when, writing to launch his Ladybird book about climate change, Prince Charles stated baldly: ‘There isn’t a pause… it is hard to reject the facts on the basis of the evidence.’
    Data changed to make the sea appear warmer 
    The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.
    Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’
    ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’
    Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.
    The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000 weather stations spread across the globe.
    This new version found past temperatures had been cooler than previously thought, and recent ones higher – so that the warming trend looked steeper. For the period 2000 to 2014, the paper increased the rate of warming on land from 0.15C to 0.164C per decade.
    In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.
    This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.
    However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.
    Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.
    Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
    The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.
    The flawed conclusions of the Pausebuster paper were widely discussed by delegates at the Paris climate change conference. Mr Karl had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a hotline to the White House.


    ...


    quarta-feira, 18 de janeiro de 2017

    Como os Poderosos do Mundo Acham que Podem Evitar Novos Trumps e Brexits.


    O site Zero Hedge traz um ótimo relato de uma reunião em Davos, na Suíça, entre a chefe do FMI, Christine Lagarde, e multimilionários, sobre como evitar a frustração da classe média mundial que elege Trump e decide pelo Brexit.

    Como eles acham que podem evitar que o povo vote por Trump e Brexit?

    Eles acham que o estado deve distribuir mais riqueza, dando dinheiro direto às pessoas, fazendo mais gastos (keynesianos) em infraestrutura, e tributando mais. 

    Esse pessoal é idiota mesmo e querem continuar mamando no Estado.

    Vejam o relato abaixo:

    Lagarde Urges Wealth Redistribution To Fight Populism

    As we scoffed oveernight, who better than a handful of semi, and not so semi, billionaires - perplexed by the populist backlash of the past year - to sit down and discuss among each other how a "squeezed and Angry" middle-class should be fixed. And so it was this morning as IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde, Italian Finance Minister Pier Carlo Padoan and Founder, Chairman and Co-CIO of Bridgewater Associates, Ray Dalio, espoused on what's needed to restore growth in the middle class and confidence in the future.

    The conclusions of the discussion are as farcical as the entire Davos debacle, as three people completely disconnected from the real world, sat down and provided these "answers"...
    As Bloomberg reports, while International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde urged a list of policies from programs to retrain workers to more social spending...
    Lagarde said policy makers “really have to think it through and see what can be done” given the feedback from voters who say "No.” Among measures that could be implemented are fiscal and structural reforms, she added.

    “But it needs to be granular, it needs to be regional, it needs to be focused on what will people get out of it and it probably means more redistribution than we have in place at the moment,” Lagarde told the panel.

    The establishment academics also had plenty of textbook declarations and jabs to make...
    “We need to go to a system where we are protecting workers, not jobs, and society will help people retrain or reorient,” Richard Baldwin, professor of international economics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, said in an interview in Davos. “There may just be a need to man up. We have to pay for the social cohesion that we need to keep our societies advancing, and accept that this may be a higher tax burden on people.”

    The panel saw former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers attacking Donald Trump saying populism is “invariably counter-productive” for those it claims to help.

    “Our President-elect has made four or five phone calls to four or five companies, largely suspending the rule of law, and extorting them into relocating dozens or perhaps even a few hundred jobs into plants in the United States,” Summers said.

    Summers’s recipe for dealing with populism twisted Trump’s campaign slogan. “Our broad objective should be to make America greater than ever before,” Summers said. “That’s very different from making it great again.”

    He suggested three major steps. First, “public investment on an adequate scale starting from infrastructure” also embracing technology and education; second, “making global integration work for ordinary people” and third, “enabling the dreams of every young American” including education, finding work and home purchasing.
    And ironically, the wealthiest of all the panel members was perhaps the clearest...
    Hedge Fund billionaire Ray Dalio warned on a panel chaired by Bloomberg Television’s Francine Lacqua that “we may be at a point where globalization is ending, and provincialization and nationalization is taking hold.”

    “I want to be loud and clear: populism scares me,” Dalio said. “The No. 1 issue economically as a market participant is how populism manifests itself over the next year or two.”
    So, to sum up - a bunch of rich, disconnected elites in Switzerland believe the world's "middle class" will be better off if policy-makers "man-up" and increase taxes on the "wealthy" in order to redistribute wealth to the masses to "pay for social cohesion." Yeah, that will work... we suspect echoes of "Four more years" will be heard in 2020 if they follow that path.



    quarta-feira, 4 de janeiro de 2017

    Documentário: "O Embuste do Aquecimento Global"



    Que tal ouvir cientistas dizendo que a questão do aquecimento global é um completo embuste político?

    Quem defende o tal aquecimento global costuma dizer que basicamente todos os cientistas colocam a culpa no homem.

    Não é assim, há muitas vozes dissidentes. Aliás, eu cheguei a mostrar no meu outro blog que, ao contrário do que se diz, a maioria dos cientistas NÃO concorda com o tal "man made global warming" (mudança climática antropogênica).

    E a ciência não é uma questão do que a maioria pensa.

    O documentário The Global Warming Swindle é bem interessante. Assistam acima.


    terça-feira, 20 de dezembro de 2016

    Nevou no Deserto do Saara. Ah, Esse Tal Aquecimento Global é Estranho


    Pois é, amigos, após 37 anos, caiu neve no deserto do Saara. Imagens lindas, não são? Não, para ambientalistas extremistas.

    2015 foi um ano muito quente, os ambientalistas saíram às ruas gritando: "É Fim do Mundo! Salvem o Planeta, Matem as Pessoas!!. Eles não disseram, mas esse aquecimento de 2015 ocorreu após 17 anos de queda na temperatura global, que veio muito abaixo do previsto pela ONU e pelos extremistas ambientais.

    Aí veio 2016. Em 2016 as temperatruras despencaram. Silêncio total entre os ambienatlistas.

    Quando ocorre queda de temperatua, os ambientalistas extremistas, no máximo, retrucam: "hei, não é aquecimento global é "mudança climática"".

    Daí, alguém poderá contra argumentar dizendo: "Mudança Climática? O que isso significa? As ilhas não vão deparecer, os mares não vão invadir as praias, as geleiras não irão derreter....?"

    Ficará sem respostas.

    Agora, leio que nevou no deserto do Saara após 37 anos.