terça-feira, 5 de junho de 2018

Tributar o PUM da Vaca - Nova Solução Idiota para Aquecimento Global


Eu sempre aprendi que a vaca é um bicho no qual se aproveita tudo. E também penso na vaca como um exemplo primordial para mostrar como a importância de um animal para o ser humano é fator que impede que o animal seja extinto.

Outra dia, também li uma historinha de que o segredo da humanidade é saber que "a vaca não dá leite". Pois na verdade é preciso acordar cedo e fazer todo um trabalho para se tirar o leite da vaca.

Para minha surpresa querem agora usar a vaca para acabar com o aquecimento global. Como a vaca é um bicho ruminante e assim o pum que ela solta é cheio de metano, que aqueceria mais o planeta do que o carbono, o estado deveria tributar o pum da vaca!!

A ideia idiota veio de Bill Nye em uma entrevista.

Bill Nye é um engenheiro mecânico mericano, que é conhecido como "science guy" (o cara da ciência) e, claro, nem precisava dizer, é um ambientalista xiita.

Bill Nye não tem nenhuma formação em climatologia ou nem meteorologia.

O site Daily Wire descreveu a ideia de Nye.

Ele disse:

"É isso que podemos fazer e é um jogo que todos ganham: tributar o carbono. Então, se você está criando gado e produzindo muito dióxido de carbono com seu equipamento agrícola e com o "escape" dos animais, então você pagaria uma taxa sobre isso e isso se refletiria no preço da carne, que consequentemente afetaria o preço do peixe e o preço do amendoim. ”

Nye prosseguiu afirmando que o imposto seria uma "forma do livre mercado para calcular o custo real de uma dieta de carne para o mundo".

A maior parte da emissão de gases de efeito estufa baseada no pum do gado vem do mundo em desenvolvimento, em especial do Brasil.

Hummmm... a solução do "cara da ciência" então é encarecer os alimentos no mundo e assim trazer fome e pobreza.

Normal, para a cabeça de melancias (verdes por fora e vermelhos por dentro).

Eu não sei de onde eles tiram essa ideia de que tributar o carbono é um "jogo que todos ganham".

Eu fico imaginando alguém colocando um aparelho no bumbum da vaca para medir quantos puns ela dá por dia e aí dizer ao pecuarista que a vaca dele soltou muito pum naquele ano, e assim ele vai ter de vender a fazenda para pagar a dívida tributrária.



sexta-feira, 11 de maio de 2018

Estudo: Defensores da Mudança Climáticas são MENOS Eco-Friendly


Uma das coisas mais absurdas que a onda ambientalista do aquecimento global trouxe, como qualquer abordagem marxista traz, é uma forte divisão estúpida entre as pessoas. Hoje em dia costuma-se imaginar que qualquer um que discorde que exista aquecimento global ou mudança climática provocada pelo homem (antropogênica) é um cara que odeia a natureza, que joga lixo na rua, que desperdiça água e chuta cachorro.

Um estudo feito por psicólogos publicado no The Journal of Environmental Pscyhcology mostra que aqueles que defendem a mudança climática antropogênica têm comportamento pessoal mais destrutivo ao meio ambiente. 

O psicólogo Michael Hall liderou uma equipe de pesquisadores em uma pesquisa longa que analisou o comportamento ambiental de 600 americanos, divididos em três categorias relacionadas à crença sobre o aquecimento global: "céticos", "moderadamente preocupado" e "altamente preocupado".

Os resultados mostraram que os céticos são os que têm comportamento pessoal mais eco-friendly, são os que mais respeitam o meio ambiente em seus comprotamentos. Enquanto aqueles que estão mais preocupados com o aquecimento global são que mais destroem e desperdiçam os ativos ambientais!! 

Os pesquisadores consideraram questões como reciclagem, uso de transporte público, uso de produtos verdes e uso de sacolas ambientais.

Os pesquisadores ofereceram duas explicações para os resultados:

1) Aqueles que defendem o aquecimento global esperam que o governo ou uma entidade global resolva o problema, enquanto têm comportamento de "licenciosidade moral" pessoalmente. 

2) Aqueles que defendem o aquecimento global são esquerdistas e esquerdistas geralmente defendem maiores gastos públicos para resolver problemas sociais e assim comparativamente aos conservadores doam menos recursos próprios para as causas que defendem. Assim, se dedicam menos pessoalmente nas suas próprias causas. 

O trabalho ajuda a mostrar que devemos ter menos preconceitos contra que é cético sobre mudança climática antropogênica.

Vejam texto abaixo do Principia Scientific International.


Study: Climate Skeptics More ‘Eco Friendly’ Than Alarmists

Written by Thomas D. Williams PhD
Americans who are skeptical about climate change engage in personal behavior that is more friendly to the environment than climate alarmists, who support increased government regulation, a new study has found.
Michael Hall, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, led a team of researchers in a yearlong longitudinal study of 600 Americans who “regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures” and published the results of their study in The Journal of Environmental Psychology.
The researchers grouped their subjects into three categories based on their attitude toward climate change: the “skeptical,” the “cautiously worried,” and the “highly concerned” and correlated their beliefs with their personal lifestyle choices.
The results of the study contradicted the intuitive assumption that people most concerned about climate change would be the most likely to engage in eco-friendly behavior, revealing instead that the contrary is true. There is an inverse correlation between climate-change concern and environmentally beneficial action.
While very supportive of government action on climate, the group of “highly concerned” were the least likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways on a personal level, the study revealed.
The self-described “skeptics,” on the other hand, while the most opposed to government climate policies, were also the “most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors,” the study found.
The environmental lifestyle choices examined by Hall and his team included recycling, using public transportation, buying “green” products, and using reusable shopping bags.
Roughly once every eight weeks during the course of a year, participants in the study were asked about their climate change beliefs as well as their degree of support for policies such as gasoline taxes and fuel economy standards. They were also queried regarding their personal conduct.
As a result of the study, researchers concluded that “belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior.”
While the empirical study by Hall and his team did not offer an explanation for the inverse correlation between environmental belief and action, at least two possible theories present themselves.
First, there is a tendency among those who believe they are on the “right side” of an issue at the macro (governmental, social) level to be negligent in the same area at the micro or personal level, an instance of a phenomenon known in psychology as “moral licensing” or “self-licensing.”
By supporting government action in a given area, people may feel morally legitimatized to cut corners at the personal level, and the area of environmental stewardship is no exception.
As Stefan Hartmann of the University of Passau describes in his paper titled “Moral Licensing in the context of Environmental Behaviour,” such an apparent disconnect between belief and action is not uncommon. Supporting government intervention often leads a person to believe he has done his or her share for the environment, leading to “self-licensing” to act in contrary ways at the personal level, as other reports have noted.
Such “moral licensing” may help explain the apparent disconnect between belief and action of the world’s most famous climate alarmist, Al Gore. His 20-room, 10,070-square-foot, Colonial-style mansion reportedly consumes 21.3 times more kilowatt hours than the average U.S. household — including 66,159 kWh per year just to heat his swimming pool.
A second explanation may be found in the distinctive moral universes of conservatives and liberals. While good and bad are bipartisan and neither side can claim definitive moral high ground, there are statistically based moral tendencies that are revealing.
As reported by the New York Times in 2008, liberals favor generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad, but give comparatively little in personal contributions to charitable causes. Personal virtue can be viewed as less important that government programs, which helps explain why liberals favor higher levels of taxation than conservatives, who would rather donate their money than have it taken from them.
Average annual charitable contributions from households headed by conservatives, for instance, give 30-50 percent more than liberal households, the Times article stated.
Similarly, the “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy has found that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so, it noted.
“How America Gives,” a 2014 study published by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, used IRS data to analyze giving patterns across the country and compared levels of giving with how each state voted in the 2012 presidential election (Romney v. Obama).
The study found that the states in which people gave the highest percentage of their adjusted gross incomes were also states that voted for Romney, while states in which people gave the lowest percentage of their adjusted gross income voted for Obama. The top 17 most generous states all went for Romney.
The partisan divide in generosity is not limited to charitable donations. Conservatives also appear to be significantly more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways, such as volunteering their time and giving blood, the Times article said.
Since the most ardent believers in climate change tend to be on the liberal end of the political spectrum, it would make sense that they would push government action on the environment, while doing less at the individual level.

segunda-feira, 7 de maio de 2018

Bancos Chineses Ficam Gigantescos e seus Riscos Também


Os três maiores bancos do mundo são chineses e eles estão gigantescos, os ativos desses bancos ultrapassaram em valor os ativos dos bancos europeus e dos bancos dos EUA.

Os números dos banco chineses chegam a limites nunca imaginados e seus riscos também. O mundo morre de medo deles, caso entrem em alguma espiral problemática.

O site The Week escreveu um ótimo artigo descrevendo-os.

Aqui vai uma parte do texto:

Lots of things are bigger in China: the population, the IPOs, the electrical dams, the Starbucks, even the mosquitos. Turns out the banks are bigger too.
The three largest banks in the world are all Chinese. The country's banking sector hit $35 trillion early this year — roughly 3.1 times the size of China's annual GDP. It overtook the eurozone's banking assets of $31 trillion — 2.8 times the eurozone's GDP — in late 2016. And it leapfrogged America's banks — $16 trillion in assets — back in 2010.

How did that happen? And should the rest of the world be worried about its gargantuan scale?

A lot of Western financial reporting has been nervously eyeing China's banks for several years now. When we talk about bank assets, a lot of that is loans made to households and companies. And China's banks built up their assets by lending like crazy over the last decade. If you add up the country's household, corporate, and government debt, the ratio of the total compared to GDP is roughly equivalent to America or Britain. But the speed with which China arrived at this point is kind of astounding.

Richard Vague, a former bank CEO and the chair of The Governor's Woods Foundation, told The Week that, just since 2008, China has seen "the largest growth in private debt in the history of the world."
You couldn't blame anyone for wondering if that pace of lending is sustainable.


segunda-feira, 23 de abril de 2018

Ambientalistas Tarados: Ecosex e Banho de Floresta



Imaginem que Pedro Álvares Cabral fosse o ambientalista radical dos nossos dias. Chegando em terras do Pau Brasil, ele olharia para aquela floresta e diria para si mesmo: "Opa, cheguei no Paraíso, agora poderei fazer longos banhos florestais e fazer muito sexo com a natureza".

O problema para Cabral é que ele poderia ser literalmente comido durante seus atos ambientalistas pelos índios canibais que habitavam o Brasil .

Bom, voltando ao dias de hoje, Dr. Briggs, um estatístico de meteorologia, nos apresentou essas novidades do mundo ambientalista: Forest Bathing (Banho de Floresta) e Ecosex (sexo, sexo mesmo, com a natureza).

Costumavam chamar os ambientalistas de melancias, por serem verdes (preocupados com o meio ambiente) por fora, mas vermelhos (comunistas) por dentro. Agora, essa melancia está apimentada sexualmente.

No artigo que explica as novidades. Ele ressalta que o tal Banho de Floresta não é um banho na realidade, aquele em que se usa água. É um banho figurativo. O sabão que se usa são as "maravilhas da floresta".

Antigamente, diz Briggs, costusmava-se chamar esse "banho de floresta" de simplesmente caminhada pela mata.

Mas tem gente cobrando US$ 50 por um banho de floresta e você pode se tornar um líder de naho de floresta se pagar US$ 3.400. Tem até livro sobre o assunto. Segundo esses "especialistas", o banho de floresta produz bem estar mental, emocional e também saúde física, além de ajudar a "curar a relação entre o planeta e a humanidade". 

Eles ressaltam que as informações técnicas dos seres da floresta não são importantes, não importa saber o tipo de árvore, o tipo de flor, para que servem, nada. O que importa é "o relacionamento com as flores, as árvores, bichos, etc." Inclusive, é pedido que as pessoas identifiquem uma árvore que seja irmã gêmea. Você coloca a mão na árvore e sente logo que se trata de um membro da sua família.

Mais apimentado ainda é o Ecosex, que avança nos interesses sexuais. Defensores do Ecosex defendem que se deve fazer amor com a terra, abraçar árvores, massagear a terra e falar coisas eróticas com plantas. Existe já um manifesto pelo Ecosex de 2011 e até artigo publicado com o selo da Universidade de Oxford. 

Para uma Universidade que foi criada por clérigos da Igreja Católica há mais de 800 anos, sendo bem mais velha que Pedro Álvares Cabral, esse tipo de artigo é apenas um exemplo sobre como andam as principais universidades do mundo. Elas estão ficando inócuas e estimulando a estupidez.

Outra universidade, dessa vez na Califórnia. a Universidade da Santa Cruz da Califórnia, define um exosexual como uma pessoa que relaciona a natureza com romantismo e sexo e ressalta um novo campo de pesquisa a sexecologia que "intersecta" ecologia com sexologia.

Pode-se encontrar nos manuais de Ecosex, 25 maneiras de fazer amor com a natureza e também há dicas para ecosexuais como por exemplo: não ficar tímido, deixar rolar os fluídos sexuais e enfiar partes do corpo no solo.

Obviamente, tanto os defensores do banho da floresta como do Ecosex dizem combater o aquecimento global. 

--------------------------------------



Vejam parte do artigo de Briggs:

From Forest Bathing To Ecosex, Earth Day Sure Has Changed

To Save The Planet, Have Sex With The Planet?

By WILLIAM M BRIGGS Published on April 21, 2018 • 8 Comments
Earth Day is a good time to note that environmentalism is growing creepier.
Take the queer practice of “forest bathing.” Forest bathing “doesn’t involve actual bathing, the kind with water. It’s figurative bathing. You soak in the wonders of the forest.” How? By walking slowly.
We used to call forest bathing “taking a walk.” That was long ago in less enlightened times before mankind learned how to turn commonplaces into marketable experiences.
Amos Clifford, the mastermind behind the movement, leads forest bathing sessions for $50 a stroll. Or for $3,400 you can learn how to be a forest-bathing leader. Clifford also wrote Your Guide to Forest Bathing.
Clifford claims forest bathing “can produce mental, emotional, and physical health benefits” and says your gentle footsteps will “connect with nature as a way to help heal both the planet and humanity.”
...

Dirty Talk

My tree didn’t extend its intimacy beyond a chat. This would have been disappointing to Sarah Ensor. She quotes approvingly from the Ecosex Manifesto in her peer-reviewed paper (put out by Oxford University Press), “The Ecopoetics of Contact: Touching, Cruising, Gleaning“:
“[Ecosexuals] make love with the earth … . We shamelessly hug trees, massage the earth with our feet, and talk erotically to plants … .” Such an approach, which counters mainstream environmentalism’s ascetic imperatives by advocating unbounded pleasure, playfully indexes one of the foundational impasses inhibiting the development of a queer ecocriticism: the conflicting status of embodied desire — and thus of touch — in its two constitutive fields. (ellipses original)
This standard academic gibberish masks a real trend. Ecosex is on the move.
According to the page “Here come the ecosexuals!” hosted by the University of California of Santa Cruz, a public institution, an exosexual is “a person that finds nature romantic, sensual and sexy.” Sexecology is “a new field of research exploring the places sexology and ecology intersect.” (The home page is not linked and is definitely not safe for work.)
The Ecosex Manifesto insists that “being ecosexual is our primary (sexual) identity” and that ecosexuals are “polymorphous and pollen-amorous.”
There is a helpful guide for ecosex newbies: “25 Ways to Make Love to the Earth.”
Tip #2: “At first you may feel embarrassed to be lovers with the Earth. Let it go. It’s OK.”
Tip #7: “Circulate erotic energy with her.”
Tip #18: “Bury parts of your body deep inside her soil.” This is to pre-experience what happens when (Tip #25), “death brings you closer together forever.”

Save the Planet for What?

This isn’t about self-indulgence. This is, says Vice, about saving the planet and “combatting [sic] climate change.”
You strap on surgical masks with glued-on moss formations, then pervert yourself with the soil. This will drop atmospheric temperatures. We aren’t told how.
Ecosex is not to be confused with ecosexuality, which is about the “sustainable” choice of “environmentally-friendly,” and presumably expensive, “bedroom paraphernalia.”
What’s confusing about this distinction is that sex — actual sex — requires no paraphernalia whatsoever and is by definition the very nature of sustainability.
Lost in these bizarre practices is that the best way to celebrate Earth Day is a prayer of thanksgiving for the bounty which we receive. Send this article to your tree-hugging friends to remind them.

quinta-feira, 29 de março de 2018

Trump Briga com a Amazon.


Trump acusa a Amazon de não pagar impostos estaduais e locais, de usar o sistema de correios dos EUA de forma exploradora e de fazer muitas pequenas empresas perderem negócio.

Ele está certo nesses aspectos? Com certeza.

Ele tem motivos escusos para atacar Amazon? Não sei, mas no que ele disse, ele está certo.

O problema para mim é que o que ele disse vale para muitas empresas, como a Starbucks (que destrói muitos pequenos cafés nos EUA e no mundo), supermercados gigantes (que destroem pequenos negócios nos EUA e no mundo), grandes lojas de departamento...

O dono da Amazon é o homem mais rico no mundo, certamente ele pisou em muitos concorrentes para chegar a esse ponto. Não tem jeito, a partir de um certo nível de riqueza e poder, para ganhar maias, você tem que destruir os concorrentes. Certa vez, eu coloquei aqui no blog, uma série do History Channel sobre os mais importantes ricaços dos EUA, e a história é sempre a mesma, depois de um certo estágio, passa-se a destruir concorrentes usando qualquer método, lícito ou ilícito.

As críticas que fez Trump são as mesmas que fazem os teóricos do Distributismo.

Em todo caso, nenhuma empresa gosta de brigar com o Estado, pois o Estado tem ferramentas destrutivas e o mercado não gosta de ver uma empresa sendo atacada pelo governo.

E assim as ações da Amazon perdem valor.

sexta-feira, 23 de março de 2018

100 Intelectuais Franceses Alertam contra Totalitarismo Islâmico


Um grupo de 100 intelectuais franceses assinam documento denunciando o totalitarismo muçulmano, no jornal Le Figaro.

Entre eles, há o excepcional Rémi Brague. Leiam qualquer livro de Rémi Brague, ele é demais, mencionei ele no meu livro Teoria e Tradição da Guerra Justa (Vide Editorial).

Também assinou o documento o premiado escritor Boualem Sansal (escrevi um artigo em que trato de um livro dele chamado 2084).

Além disso, vale menção do historiador Alain Besançon, diretor de estudos da Escola de Altos Estudos em Ciências Sociais.

E também de Ibn Warraq, que escreveu vários livros sobre o Islã.

Aliás, hoje teve mais um ataque terrorista muçulmano na França.

O site Jihad Watch traduziu o texto para o inglês e colocou todos os nomes dos assinantes.

Vejam abaixo.

"We are citizens of differing and often diametrically opposed views, who have found agreement in expressing our concern in the face of the rise of Islamism. We are united not by our affinities, but by the feeling of danger that threatens freedom in general and not just freedom of thought.
That which unites us today is more fundamental than that which will undoubtedly separate us tomorrow.
Islamist totalitarianism seeks to gain ground by every means possible and to represent itself as a victim of intolerance. This strategy was demonstrated some weeks ago when the SUD Education 93 teachers union proposed a training course that included workshops on state racism from which white people were barred.
Several of the facilitators were members or sympathizers of the CCIF (French Collective Against Islamophobia) or the Natives of the Republic party. Such examples have proliferated recently. We have thus learned that the best way to combat racism is to separate races. If this idea shocks us, it is because we are Republicans.
We also hear it said that because religions in France are trampled on by an institutionalized secularism, everything that is in a minority — in other words Islam — must be accorded a special place so that it can cease to be humiliated.
This same argument continues by asserting that in covering themselves with a hijab, women are protecting themselves from men and that keeping themselves apart is a means to emancipation.
What these proclamations have in common is the idea that the only way to defend the “dominated” (the term is that of SUD Education 93) is to set them apart and grant them privileges.
Not so long ago, apartheid reigned in South Africa. Based on the segregation of blacks, it sought to exonerate itself by creating bantustans (territories set aside for black South Africans) where blacks were granted false autonomy. Fortunately this system no longer exists.
Today, a new kind of apartheid is emerging in France, a segregation in reverse thanks to which the “dominated” seek to retain their dignity by sheltering themselves from the “dominators.”
But does this mean that a woman who casts off her hijab and goes out into the street becomes a potential victim? Does it mean that a “race” that mixes with others becomes humiliated? Does it mean that a religion that accepts being one among other religions loses face?
Does Islamism also seek to segregate French Muslims, whether believers or otherwise, who accept democracy and are willing to live with others? Who will decide for women who refuse to be locked away? As for others, who seemingly do not deserve to be protected, will they be held under lock and key in the camp of the “dominators”?
All of this runs counter to what has been done in France to guarantee civil peace. For centuries, the unity of the nation has been grounded in a detachment with respect to particularities that can be a source of conflict. What is known as Republican universalism does not consist in denying the existence of gender, race or religion but in defining civic space independently of them so that nobody feels excluded. How can one not see that secularism protects minority religions?
Jeopardizing secularism exposes us to a return to the wars of religion.
What purpose can this new sectarianism serve? Must it only allow the self-styled “dominated” to safeguard their purity by living amongst themselves? Is not its overall objective to assert secession from national unity, laws and mores? Is it not the expression of a real hatred towards our country and democracy?
For people to live according to the laws of their community or caste, in contempt of the laws of others, for people to be judged only by their own, is contrary to the spirit of the Republic. The French Republic was founded on the refusal to accept that private rights can be applied to specific categories of the population and on the abolition of privilege.
On the contrary, the Republic guarantees that the same law applies to each one of us. This is simply called justice.
This new separatism is advancing under concealment. It seeks to appear benign but is in reality a weapon of political and cultural conquest in the service of Islamism.
Islamism wants to set itself apart because it rejects others, including those Muslims who do not subscribe to its tenets. Islamism abhors democratic sovereignty, to which it refuses any kind of legitimacy. Islamism feels humiliated when it is not in a position of dominance.
Accepting this is out of the question. We want to live in a world where both sexes can look at each other with neither feeling insulted by the presence of the other. We want to live in a world where women are not deemed to be naturally inferior. We want to live in a world where people can live side by side without fearing each other. We want to live in a world where no religion lays down the law.
Waleed al-Husseini, writer
Arnaud d’Aunay, painter
Pierre Avril, academic
Vida Azimi, jurist
Isabelle Barbéris, academic
Kenza Belliard, teacher
Georges Bensoussan, historian
Corinne Berron, author
Alain Besançon, historian
Fatiha Boudjahlat, essayist
Michel Bouleau, jurist
Rémi Brague, philosopher
Philippe Braunstein, historian
Stéphane Breton, film maker, ethnologist
Claire Brière-Blanchet, reporter, essayist
Marie-Laure Brossier, city councillor
Pascal Bruckner, writer
Eylem Can, script writer
Sylvie Catellin, semiologist
Gérard Chaliand, writer
Patrice Champion, former ministerial advisor
Brice Couturier, journalist
Éric Delbecque, essayist
Chantal Delsol, philosopher
Vincent Descombes, philosopher
David Duquesne, nurse
Luc Ferry, philosopher, former minister
Alain Finkielkraut, philosopher, writer
Patrice Franceschi, writer
Renée Fregosi, philosopher
Christian Frère, professor
Claudine Gamba-Gontard, professor
Jacques Gilbert, historian of ideas
Gilles-William Goldnadel, lawyer
Monique Gosselin-Noat, academic
Gabriel Gras, biologist
Gaël Gratet, professor
Patrice Gueniffey, historian
Alain Guéry, historian
Éric Guichard, philosopher
Claude Habib, writer, professor
Nathalie Heinich, sociologist
Clarisse Herrenschmidt, linguist
Philippe d’Iribarne, sociologist
Roland Jaccard, essayist
Jacques Jedwab, psychoanalyst
Catherine Kintzler, philosopher
Bernard Kouchner, doctor, humanitarian, former minister
Bernard de La Villardière, journalist
Françoise Laborde, journalist
Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, essayist
Dominique Lanza, clinical psychologist
Philippe de Lara, philosopher
Josepha Laroche, academic
Alain Laurent, essayist, editor
Michel Le Bris, writer
Jean-Pierre Le Goff, philosopher
Damien Le Guay, philosopher
Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, jurist
Barbara Lefebvre, teacher
Patrick Leroux-Hugon, physicist
Élisabeth Lévy, journalist
Laurent Loty, historian of ideas
Mohamed Louizi, engineer, essayist
Jérôme Maucourant, economist
Jean-Michel Meurice, painter, film director
Juliette Minces, sociologist
Marc Nacht, psychoanalyst, writer
Morgan Navarro, cartoonist
Pierre Nora, historian, editor
Robert Pépin, translator
Céline Pina, essayist
Yann Queffélec, writer
Jean Queyrat, film director
Philippe Raynaud, professor of political science
Robert Redeker, writer
Pierre Rigoulot, historian
Ivan Rioufol, journalist
Philippe San Marco, author, essayist
Boualem Sansal, writer
Jean-Marie Schaeffer, philosopher
Martine Segalen, ethnologist
André Senik, teacher
Patrick Sommier, man of the theater
Antoine Spire, vice-president of Licra
Wiktor Stoczkowski, anthropologist
Véronique Tacquin, professor, writer
Pierre-André Taguieff, political scientist
Maxime Tandonnet, author
Sylvain Tesson, writer
Paul Thibaud, essayist
Bruno Tinel, economist
Michèle Tribalat, demographer
Caroline Valentin, essayist
David Vallat, author
Éric Vanzieleghem, documentalist
Jeannine Verdès-Leroux, historian
Emmanuel de Waresquiel, historian
Ibn Warraq, writer
Yves-Charles Zarka, philosopher
Fawzia Zouari, writer

terça-feira, 13 de março de 2018

Al Gore e o Guia Politicamente Incorreto da Mudança Climática

Acaba de ser lançado o livro acima, disponível a partir da próxima semana: Guia Politicamente Incorreto da Mudança Climática.

O autor, Marc Morano, é fundador do Climate Depot, site crítico da hipótese de mudança climática.

 O site Daily Wire destacou a parte do livro sobre Al Gore que ficou trilionario com divulgação dessa hipótese tão frágil cientificamente, que engana desde o papa Francisco até o professor do seu filho de 3 anos.

Al Gore tinha uma renda de 1,9 milhão de dólares quando foi candidato a vice presidente em 2000. Em 2007, com sua campanha climática e investimentos em companhias "ambientais" sua renda passou a ser de 100 milhões de dólares.

Vale à pena comprar esse livro, ler e dá para a escola do seu filho ou para o padre de sua diocese.