Mudança Climática: Seis Décadas de Erros de Previsão Climática

O site Daily Caller tratou ontem dos erros de previsão climática dos cientistas. Há seis décadas, eles só erram. E erram para cima, preveem que vai fazer mais calor. Vejam gráfico acima.

Por que será que eles erram tanto e recorrentemente? Será que eles querem acelerar as políticas públicas contra um suposto aquecimento global? 

Satélites mostram que não tem havido aquecimento da Terra, apesar de maiores emissões de carbono pelo homem.

Vejam texto abaixo.

Climate Models Have Been Wrong About Global Warming For Six Decades

By Michael Bastasch

Climate models used by scientists to predict how much human activities will warm the planet have been over-predicting global warming for the last six decades, according to a recent working paper by climate scientists.

“Everyone by now is familiar with the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in the rate of global warming that has taken place over the past 20 years of so, but few realize is that the observed warming rate has been beneath the model mean expectation for periods extending back to the mid-20th century—60+ years,” Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger, climate scientists at the libertarian Cato Institute, write in a working paper released in December.

Michaels and Knappenberger compared observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 to what was predicted by 108 climate models used by government climate scientists to predict how much carbon dioxide emissions will warm the planet.

What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred.

         

“During all periods from 10 years (2006-2015) to 65 (1951-2015) years in length, the observed temperature trend lies in the lower half of the collection of climate model simulations,” Michaels and Knappenberger write, “and for several periods it lies very close (or even below) the 2.5th percentile of all the model runs.”

To further bolster their case that climate models are over-predicting warming rates, Michaels and Knappenberger looked at how climate models fared against satellite and weather balloon data from the mid-troposphere. The result is the same, and climate models predicted way more warming than actually occurred.

“This is a devastating indictment of climate model performance,” Michaels and Knappenberger write. “For periods of time longer than about 20 years, the observed trends from all data sources fall beneath the lower bound which contains 95 percent of all model trends and in the majority of cases, falls beneath even the absolute smallest trend found in any of the 102 climate model runs.”

“The amount of that over-prediction comports well with a growing body of scientific findings and growing understanding that the sensitivity of the earth’s surface temperature to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels… lies towards (and yet within) the low end of the mainstream assessed likely range.”

Satellite temperatures, which measure the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere, show there’s been no significant global warming for the last two decades despite rapidly rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

The so-called “hiatus” in warming has sparked an intense debate among climate scientists over what’s caused warming to disappear. Dozens of theories have been put forward as to why global warming has stalled, but no one has cracked the case.

Michaels and Knappenberger, however, suggest the “hiatus” and the previous decades of overblown temperature predictions point to a huge flaw in climate science: the climate isn’t as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought.

The Cato scientists argue “climate sensitivity” estimates are too high and are causing climate models to over-predict how much warming will happen with increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Climate sensitivity refers to how much warming would occur with a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

Climate scientists typically put climate sensitivity at 3 degrees Celsius, but a slew of new studies suggest that’s way too high an estimate based on how much warming has been observed in recent decades. One estimate put together by the U.K.-based Global Warming Policy Foundation last year found climate sensitivity may be as low as 1.75 degrees Celsius — almost half what mainstream climate models use.

O Acordo do Clima de Paris - EUA admite que Reduzir Carbono Não tem Efeito, China pode Construir Usina de Carvão, Hansen chama de Bullshit,...

Aqui vão algumas notícias desanimadoras para os ambientalistas sobre os resultados da Conferência do Clima:

1)  É pior acordo na história, US$ 1,5 trilhão por ano para reduzir a temperatura em 0,048 graus, se ninguém mentir.

2) John Kerry admite que Reduzir Carbono não terá efeito nenhum.

3) Mesmo ambientalistas admitem que o Acordo de Paris foi completa perda de tempo. O Acordo não vale nada.

4) Acordo é dito ser apenas "tiger paper" (mentirinha) e não é verificável.

5) O criador dessa história de que carbono emitido por seres humanos provoca aquecimento global, o cientista James Hansen, chamou o acordo de "bullshit" (cocô de vaca)  e falso.

6) China e Índia poderão construir mais 2.400 usinas de carvão pelo acordo celebrado.

7) Acordo não incluiu setor de aviação e transporte, que são parte importante das emissões.

8) O milionário Maurice Strong que estabeleceu a agenda ambiental da ONU faleceu sem ver o resultado mais recente de sua empreitada. No passado, ele foi pego recebendo muito dinheiro ilícito.

Abaixo também um exemplo de bom texto sobre o assunto:

Unenforceable Paris Climate Agreement, ‘Worse than a Failure,’
Would Trap the Poor in Poverty if Implemented
Burke, VA, December 14, 2015—“The agreement reached at the Paris climate summit is worse than a failure,” said Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

“The ‘commitments’ made in the Paris agreement are voluntary and unenforceable,” Beisner said, “which means most nations will not comply. EU nations said they would make binding commitments only if all major emitters did—and they didn’t. So the EU’s ‘commitments’ lose all substance.”

China and India, the #1 and #3 CO2 emitting nations, plan for their emissions to continue rising at least until 2030, and reductions even in rate of growth later will depend on whether they can be made without slowing their rise out of poverty. Other developing countries’ “commitments” are similar.

“That’s perfectly understandable,” Beisner said. “Risks from poverty are far greater than from climate change, so whatever slows economic growth means greater harm than global warming.” That thinking is behind the Cornwall Alliance’s petition, Forget ‘Climate Change’, Energy Empowers the Poor.

Full compliance with the Paris agreement would cost hundreds of billions of dollars per year beginning now and rise to $1–2 Trillion per year from 2030 onward. As Copenhagen Consensus Center President Bjørn Lomborg, pointed out, it would still reduce CO2 emissions by only 1% of the amount the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is needed to limit global warming to 2˚C (3.6˚F) over pre-industrial levels.

Even the United States, despite President Barack Obama’s determined efforts, is unlikely to achieve its “commitments” to reduce CO2 emissions by 26–28 percent under 2005 levels by 2025. Even assuming all the regulations he has proposed survive judicial review, which is unlikely, their full implementation would achieve only about a 13–14 percent reduction.

The Paris agreement continues a “commitment” made by rich nations at the Copenhagen summit in 2009 to contribute $100 billion per year to help developing nations bear the costs of adaptation to changing climate and of CO2 emissions restrictions. But that fund has never materialized, and the rich nations “committed” to it only on condition that the poor nations would commit to emission reductions, which they did not.

Beisner said the most worthwhile outcome of the Paris summit is probably “the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a global group of private investors who will support companies that are taking innovative clean-energy ideas out of the lab and into the marketplace,” as Bill Gates described it, saying, “Our primary goal with the Coalition is as much to accelerate progress on clean energy ….”

“But to the extent that the Paris agreement actually gets implemented, it’s a disaster for the poor around the world,” Beisner said. “It will slow their access to the abundant, affordable, reliable energy indispensable to rising and staying out of poverty, while achieving no discernable improvement in climate but diverting trillions of dollars from solving hunger, malnutrition, and disease.”

Manifestantes Pró-Clima Destróem Homenagens aos Mortos do Terrorismo na França

Eles querem protestar, eles querem aparecer, eles querem destruir. E acham que com isso terão um mundo melhor. Vejam no vídeo abaixo, a vontade de aparecer de alguns. É uma desgraça.







 

Apenas os Ricos e Esquerdistas nos EUA apoiam a Entrada de Refugiados Sírios.

Vejam a tabela acima, ela mostra que apenas os mais ricos e os esquerdistas (eleitores do Partido Democrata) apoiam a entrada de refugiados sírios nos EUA.

Eu  fico sempre intrigado quando vou a um jantar com a presença de pessoas "ilustres", elas têm opiniões completamente alheias à realidade do dia a dia, especialmente professores universitários, ricos ou diplomatas.

Esses grupos vivem em uma bolha, em geral são esquerdistas e ateus, e detestam qualquer conversa sobre religião.

Eles não vão conviver com os refugiados sírios, viverão cercados nos "campi" das universidades ou em ´condomínios fechados ou em outros países.

Como diz Sean Davis, esses grupos "mostram sua compaixão forçando as outras pessoas a terem compaixão para poder terem a consciência tranquila"

(Agradeço a informação ao site Weasel Zippers)

Obama e Abraham Lincoln - Uma Comparação Cômica

 

Nada mais diferente de Obama de que Abraham Lincoln, mas os feitos de Lincoln foram tão sensacionais que mesmo sendo republicano, os do Partido Democrata insistem em compará-lo com Lincoln. Daí, o site The American Catholic resolveu entrar na brincadeira e definiu 10 coisas em que Obama e Lincoln são idênticos.

A melhor foi tanto Obama como Lincoln destruiu o Partido Democrata. Quem acompanha a política dos EUA sabe que o Partido Democrata era um e agora é outro após Obama. Antes era possível ouvir alguma sanidade, dos chamados "Blue Dogs", democratas mais sensatos. Hoje, em dia, esse grupo desapareceu, o Partido é dominado por doutrina comunista que leva a que Bernie Sanders, um declarado comunista e louco, esteja bem colocado nas pesquisas para substituir Obama e que o partido aceite, incluindo Obama e Hilaire Clinton, coisas como "Black Lives Matter" que defende o assassinato de policiais.

Lincoln destruiu o partido Democrata, porque mostrou, como do Partido Republicano, como se constrói uma país baseado na justiça e na democracia.

Outra muito boa, é a última. Tanto Obama como Lincoln ao deixarem a presidência deixou o país chorando. Sim, muitos choram pela desgraça em todos os sentidos (econômicos, militares, sociais) que foi o governo Obama, enquanto muitos até hoje choram a falta de um Lincoln.

Outra boa é que ambos aumentaram em muito a dívida pública. Obama por razões keynesianas e Lincoln de forma muito diferente, enfrentou uma guerra civil.

Vejam as 10 coisas que igualam Obama e Lincoln do site The American Catholic.

The New York Post has a story entitled “Did Obama Actually Follow in Lincoln’s Footsteps?” After I stopped choking with laughter, I decided to write a post about how Obama is just like the Great Emancipator:

1. They both resided in Illinois prior to election as president.
2. They both were attorneys.
3. They both served in the Illinois legislature.
4. They both left the Democrat party in shambles after their terms in office.
5. They both amassed more debt than any president prior to them.
6. They both had Veeps who acted drunk in public.
7. They both were homo sapiens.
8. They both were male.
9. They both had people laugh at what they said, albeit for different reasons.
10. Lincoln left the nation crying, and I suspect that Obama will do the same.

 

Jovens e suas Ilusões, Tão Facilmente Destruídas.

Dá até pena da garota que quer educação de graça, cancelamento de todas as dívidas dos estudantes e aumentar muito o salário mínimo. Quando Neil Cavuto pergunta quem vai pagar por isso. Ela, obviamente, responde que são os ricos. Daí, Cavuto pergunta coisas básicas:

- Como fará para que os ricos não deixem os EUA?
- Como fará para fazer isso pois nem se tributasse todos os milionários em 100% conseguiria sustentar o sistema educacional americano?
- Se os amigos dela estão dispostos a pagar mais impostos se ficarem ricos.
- Se se ela e sua família voluntariamente pagariam mais impostos.
- Se ela conhece a história de países na Europa que estão em crise total, que dão muitas coisas de graça para a população.

Vejam que ela não tem respostas, não está preparada para perguntas lógicas. Está preparada apenas para ser louvada por jornalistas imbecis.

Certamente vai ouvir de seus colegas e professores comunistas: "a culpa é da Fox News, eles são de direita, defendem os capitalistas".

Apenas 7% dos Jornalistas são de Direita nos EUA. E no Brasil?

 

Certa vez, eu li que apenas 13% dos professores universitários nos Estados Unidos são de direita (conservadores), eleitores do Partido Republicano.  Hoje, leio que na mídia, é ainda pior, apenas 7% se dizem eleitores do Partido Republicano. Se a maioria do povo americano é conservador, segundo as pesquisas, a mídia e as universidades estão longe de representar o que pensa o povo.

 

O esquerdismo domina as universidades e a mídia completamente, na imensa maioria dos países. Qualquer um, aluno ou cidadão ou político, com opinião de direita vira centro de ataque dessas duas instituições.

 

Qual é a percentagem de conservadores na mídia e nas universidades brasileiras? Tenho a impressão que o caso pode ser semelhante. Um pouco mais difícil de avaliar porque o Brasil nem possui partido de direita. Teríamos de definir o que significa ser de direita, conservador. Eu definiria como alguém que tem ênfase na moral, é contra o aborto, o casamento gay, a eutanásia, e tem valores relativos à economia que contrastam com o comunismo, é defensor do livre mercado. No Brasil, grande parte dos ditos conservadores só se enquadram na segunda parte, são completamente esquerdistas na parte moral, são do tipo "libertários" nos EUA, fãs de von Mises, um homem que detestava religião e cristianismo, mas também detestava o comunismo. Certa vez, eu tive que provar isso a um libertário que nunca leio von Mises, apesar de ser fã dele. Isso também é comum no Brasil, não se lê nem aqueles que se gosta.

 

Como eu sempre digo os extremos, comunistas e libertários, se encontram e dão as mãos em valores morais, eles liberam o aborto, o casamento gay, as drogas, a eutanásia. Mas ser libertário, não é ser conservador, é apenas uma variação do esquerdismo. O que pesa na vida de uma pessoa ou de um país são fatores morais.  Como dissociar a riqueza americana da moralidade americana? O País foi fundado por cristãos ortodoxos e sua Declaração de Independência relega todo poder a Deus.

Cliquem aqui e leiam a reportagem do Washington Times que detalha os apenas 7% de jornalistas de direita nos EUA

 

Relação entre Benesses Públicas e Religiosidade

Quanto mais o Estado dar dinheiro e serviços para as pessoas que não contribuem para a arrecadação da sociedade, mais elas precisam menos dos serviços prestados pelas comunidades e Igrejas.

Se a Igreja já tem tendência marxistas, de exigir que o Estado provenha tudo (ver CNBB), ou se tem doutrina de que Cristo se revela quando o cara é rico, ser pobre é sinal de abandono de Deus (ver igrejas pentecostais), então realmente a religiosidade tende a ser destruída.

Tive acesso a um artigo que trata justamente disso. Muito interessante. Eu vou pensar em reproduzir para o caso brasileiro.

Vejam o abstract do artigo abaixo que pode ser acessado clicando aqui.

 

A Cerveja dos Monges "Ora et Labora" nos EUA.

Eu amo cervejas trapistes, como sabem aqueles que acompanham esse blog. Hoje li dois textos sobre o assunto. O primeiro fala sobre a primeira cerveja trapiste fora da Europa. Será feita nos Estados Unidos e se chama Spencer Trappist. O segundo trata da relação entre cerveja e catolicismo.

Frank Swigonski explicou o que significa ser uma cerveja trapiste e falou sobre essa nova cerveja produzida nos EUA. E David Bonagura Jr tratou da relação de cerveja com catolicismo.

Vou colocar aqui apenas parte do texto de Swingonski, leiam os dois textos clicando nos links.

Monks of St. Joseph’s: Trappist Beer in America

Frank Swigonski

 

Beer enthusiasts will remember that a few years ago the United States became home to the first Trappist brewery located outside of Europe. St. Joseph’s Abbey in Massachusetts, about an hour outside of Boston, began operating the Spencer Brewery in 2013. And next month, just in time for the holiday season, the brewery will be releasing a new beer: Spencer Trappist Holiday Ale. To help you enjoy this special beer, here’s a brief history of Trappist brewing and some background on St. Joseph’s Abbey and the Spencer Brewery.

 

“Trappist” doesn’t denote a style of beer or a type of brewery, but rather is an appellation — a legal designation similar to a trademark that indicates a product is made under the direct supervision of monks on monastic property. The Trappist designation isn’t just limited to beer. Trappist monks sell everything from soap to ceramics under the Trappist appellation. Monks at St. Joseph’s Abbey, for example, made jelly prior to getting into the beer business a few years ago.

 

The artisanship protected by the Trappist appellation is directly related to the daily life of the Trappist monks and the financial success of the Trappist monastery. Trappist monks belong to a special order of Roman Catholic monks, the Cistercians of the Strict Observance. In addition to the standard Catholic vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, these monks also live by the rules of St. Benedict, of which there are 73 separate chapters.

 

The daily life of the Trappist monks can be summed up by the motto “ora et labora” or “work and prayer.” They pray 7 times a day and engage in daily labor, the fruits of which are used to support the monastery.

 

Those Trappist monasteries that brew beer use the proceeds from the beer’s sale to cover the operating costs of the monastery, take care of the monks, and support different charities. These costs can be substantial in a monastery with a growing population of elder monks. St. Joseph’s Abbey, for example, houses 63 monks with an average age of 70. Health care costs make up a third of the monastery’s expenses. “The health costs are huge,” the Abbey’s ranking number 2, Father Dominic Whedbee, told the Huffington Post. “Our infirmary is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That way we can take care of all our men for the rest of their lives, which is our commitment.”

 

Given the remarkable growth in demand for a variety of new and innovative beers in the United States, it’s no surprise that St. Joseph’s Abbey would turn to beer-making to help support itself and its members. Indeed, it isn’t the only monastery to recently turn to commercial brewing. The number of monastic breweries holding the Trappist appellation for beer has increased from seven to 11 in the last five years. Starting a brewery can be a smart long-term investment for a Trappist monastery. Other Trappist monasteries are raking in an excess of $50 million per year — all of which goes to support the monastery and associated charities — from the sale of beer and other products, such as cheese.

 

The monks at St. Joseph’s certainly have a long tradition of brewing to draw on. There are Trappist breweries in Europe that were founded before the first settlers landed in Jamestown. Widespread commercial production and refinement of the current styles offered by Trappist breweries didn’t really begin until the 19th and 20th centuries. But these monks have been brewing beer for hundreds of years. Luckily for the monks at St. Joseph’s, Trappist brewers also have a long history of helping out their fellow monks. The monks at St. Joseph’s toured the brewery at Notre-Dame de Scourmount, which produces Chimay. Not wanting the new brewery to damage the Trappist brand, European Trappist brewers helped the brothers at St. Joseph’s develop a good recipe for their beer.

 

One can imagine no better teacher for the art of brewing than a Trappist brewmaster. It just so happens that if you devote your entire life to only work and prayer (and your work is brewing beer), you end up making some pretty damn good beer. The beers produced at Trappist monasteries are nothing less than world class. The highly sought-after and impossible to pronounce (or procure) Westvleteren XII consistently ranks in the top ten on BeerAdvocate and as the best beer on RateBeer. And it receives accolades by beer reviewers from Randy Mosher to Garrett Oliver. The Chimay Red and Westmalle Tripel are archetypes of the abbey style. And Orval is as unique stylistically as the bowling pin-shaped bottle it comes in.

 

Morgan Stanley Anuncia "Investimento para Católicos". Que Católicos?

Texto do site ThinkAdvisor noticia que o grupo financeiro Morgan Stanley resolveu criar um "programa de investimentos com valores  católicos". O grupo teria sido estimulado pela passagem do Papa Francisco no Estados Unidos.

Antes de saber dos detalhes. Pensemos. O que seria um investimento católico?

Para mim, seria um investimento usando como abordagem aquilo que diferencia o catolicismo de muitas outras religiões. Como por exemplo, um investimento que lutasse contra o aborto ou a eutanásia e defendesse o casamento tradicional.

Acontece que o programa de "investimentos com valores  católicos" do grupo financeiro fala apenas em investimentos que protegem o meio ambiente, moradia barata, contra discriminação e "outras políticas construtivas".

Isto é, o que o grupo chama de "valores católicos" são valores seculares, "humanistas", defendidos por inúmeros ateus que podem até odiar as doutrinas da Igreja Católica.

E o ThinkAdvisor ainda diz que o anúncio do programa de investimentos vem no mesmo dia que o grupo é acusado de investir muito na indústria de carvão, a mais ambientalmente poluente produtora de energia.

Tudo realmente é muito estúpido e hipócrita no mercado financeiro. Vejam texto do ThinkAdvisor

Morgan Stanley Introduces Catholic-Focused Investing Program

The news comes the same day the company is targeted for its support of the coal industry

The influence of Pope Francis’ recent visit to New York is being felt at Morgan Stanley (MS). The wirehouse said early Friday that it is rolling out a tool kit for financial advisors based on Catholic values.

“We are pleased to provide our [individual and institutional] clients with strategies to pursue risk-adjusted financial returns in tandem with faith-based objectives,” said Hilary Irby, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Investing with Impact Initiative, in a statement. “There continues to be a growing range of investment choices and opportunities in the Catholic values space, across mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and separately managed accounts.”

According to the firm, the initiative aims to help investors “customize their portfolios to align with their personal and institutional faith-based goals.”

It is part of Morgan Stanley’s broader Investing with Impact Platform, which was introduced in 2012 and includes more than 130 investment products focused on environmental and social impact investing.

News of the company’s Catholic-values rollout came on the same day that the Rainforest Action Network staged rallies in nine major cities calling for Morgan Stanley to divest from the coal industry. According to the group, Citigroup said recently it would make cuts to its coal-financing projects, and Bank of America also made a similar pledge.

The financial sector boosted income 7% on average in the latest period as sales jumped 19% from a year ago.
 

In early June, Morgan Stanley issued a $500 million green bond to fund the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. As for when it may consider changing its approach to coal, the company referenced its enviornmental policy statement that says it is "committed to considering environmental issues in all aspects of our business, including how we evaluate companies, transactions and risk ... and how we promote and develop new market opportunities. We believe that our approach to environmental issues helps us pursue our principal focus of creating long-term value for our shareholders and serving the long-term interests of our clients."

The company’s Catholic-values program can assist investors who want to invest in firms that support affordable housing, high environmental standards and other constructive policies, according to a press release: “It also provides guidance to investors who seek to avoid companies that engage in discrimination, predatory lending or other activities inconsistent with Catholic values.”


(Agradeço o texto ao site Center for Law and Religion Fórum)

Top Cientista: "Mudança Climática é Mistério Humano (pela estupidez) e Não Mistério Científico"

Dr. Freeman Dyson, top cientista, conselheiro de presidentes dos EUA, disse o que ele pensa da ideia de mudança climática antropogênica (provocada pelo homem) que tanto estimula palavras de Obama a Papa Francisco. Para ele, há um cegueira absoluta para ver que essa ideia é "bullshit", bobagem. Cegueira que pode ser explicada, segundo ele, pelo dinheiro.

Dyson estudou o clima durante 25 anos de sua vida acadêmica. Ele é considerado gênio desde que tinha 5 anos de idade. Ele diz que os efeitos benéficos do dióxido de carbono superam os efeitos maléficos.

Apesar de ser eleitor do partido democrata de Obama, Dyson diz que os republicanos estão certos.

Vejamos texto abaixo do site Breibart News:

Top Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama Has Picked The ‘Wrong Side’ On Climate Change
by James Delingpole

The climate models used by alarmist scientists to predict global warming are getting worse, not better; carbon dioxide does far more good than harm; and President Obama has backed the “wrong side” in the war on “climate change.”

So says one of the world’s greatest theoretical physicists, Dr Freeman Dyson (pictured above), the British-born, naturalised American citizen who worked at Princeton University as a contemporary of Einstein and has advised the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.

In an interview with Andrew Orlowski of The Register, Dyson expressed his despair at the current scientific obsession with climate change which he says is “not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to the obvious facts.”

This mystery, says Dyson, can only partly be explained in terms of follow the money. Also to blame, he believes, is a kind of collective yearning for apocalyptic doom.

It is true that there’s a large community of people who make their money by scaring the public, so money is certainly involved to some extent, but I don’t think that’s the full explanation. 

It’s like a hundred years ago, before World War I, there was this insane craving for doom, which in a way, helped cause World War I. People like the poet Rupert Brooke were glorifying war as an escape from the dullness of modern life. [There was] the feeling we’d gone soft and degenerate, and war would be good for us all. That was in the air leading up to World War I, and in some ways it’s in the air today.

Dyson, himself a longstanding Democrat voter, is especially disappointed by his chosen party’s unscientific stance on the climate change issue.

It’s very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people’s views on climate change]. I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.

Part of the problem, he says, is the Democrats’ conflation of “pollution” (a genuine problem) with “climate change” (a natural phenomenon quite beyond mankind’s ability to control).

China and India rely on coal to keep growing, so they’ll clearly be burning coal in huge amounts. They need that to get rich. Whatever the rest of the world agrees to, China and India will continue to burn coal, so the discussion is quite pointless. 

At the same time, coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate. I remember in England when we burned coal, everything was filthy. It was really bad, and that’s the way it is now in China, but you can clean that up as we did in England. It takes a certain amount of political willpower, and that takes time.  

Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn’t understand that.

The short-to-medium term solution to the pollution problem, he argues, is the replacement of coal with much-maligned shale gas, whose rejection by much of Europe he finds unfathomable and counter-productive.

As far as the next 50 years are concerned, there are two main forces of energy, which are coal and shale gas. Emissions have been going down in the US while they’ve going up in Europe, and that’s because of shale gas. It’s only half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. China may in fact be able to develop shale gas on a big scale and that means they burn a lot less coal. 

It seems complete madness to prohibit shale gas. You wondered if climate change is an Anglophone preoccupation. Well, France is even more dogmatic than Britain about shale gas!

Dyson, 91, has enjoyed a long, distinguished career as a physicist, mathematician and public intellectual, showing promise as early as the age of five when he calculated the number of atoms in the sun.  During World War II, he worked at the Operation Research Section of the Royal Air Force’s Bomber Command, before moving to the US where Robert Oppenheimer awarded him a permanent post at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. He also worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, looking at the climate system 25 years ago, before it became a hot political issue.

The dangers of carbon dioxide, he believes, have been much overrated. In a foreword to a report for The Global Warming Policy Foundation by Indur Goklany called Carbon Dioxide: The Good News, – as reported here at Breitbart – he says:

To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage. 

I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.

He likens the “climate change” issue to some of the other “irrational beliefs” promoted through history “by famous thinkers and adopted by loyal disciples.”

Sometimes, as in the use of bleeding as a treatment for various diseases, irrational belief did harm to a large number of human victims. George Washington was one of the victims. Other irrational beliefs, such as the phlogiston theory of burning or the Aristotelian cosmology of circular celestial motions, only did harm by delaying the careful examination of nature. In all these cases, we see a community of people happily united in a false belief that brought leaders and followers together. Anyone who questioned the prevailing belief would upset the peace of the community.

Dyson’s refusal ever to accommodate himself with the modish notions of the hour may explain why, unlike some of his less distinguished and brilliant contemporaries over the years, he has never been awarded a Nobel Prize.

He concludes:

“I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence.”

 

29% dos Americanos Apoiariam Golpe Militar nos EUA

O Brasil tem uma experiência terrível com golpe militar, não mais terrível que seus vizinhos, mas também traumática. Mas fiquei surpreso com uma pesquisa que mostra que quase um terço dos americanos gostaria que houvesse golpe militar no país, em especial os eleitores republicanos, que detestam Obama.

Obama realmente, que ganhou a eleição falando em um país "acima da política", "acima das raças", para o bem de todos, não fez nada disso, acelerou o "nós contra eles" e vive usando o argumento do "racismo" para atacar seus críticos. Com Obama, grupos radicais de negros que tentam matar policiais inocentes como BlackLivesMatter andam impunes.

Em suma, Obama dividiu mais o país e tornou o próprio partido em esquerdista radical. Os chamados "blue dogs", esquerdistas moderados, acabaram.

Vejamos o texto do Zero Hedge sobre pesquisa.

1 In 3 Americans Would Support A Military Coup... In America

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/13/2015 19:45 -0400

One topic that seems to be of great concern to a relatively large swath of the US public is the militarization of American cities.

Indeed, with each passing “confrontation” between protesters and police, “protecting and serving” seems to look more and more like “subduing and controlling.” 

The fear of military and police overreach came to a head this year in the lead up to the US Spec Ops Command’s multi-state “training exercise” dubbed Jade Helm 15. Thanks to a few viral internet campaigns and some badly-timed Wal-Mart closures, some US citizens came to believe that the federal government had devised a plan to institute martial law in Texas. 

Be that as it may, if there’s anything Americans fear more than overt oppression enacted by force it’s covert oppression enacted by a nefarious combination of crony capitalism and corrupt (not to mention largely incompetent) politicians, which we suppose explains why nearly a third of Americans say they would support a military coup in the US. Here’s more from YouGov:

The United States military has long embraced the idea of civilian control of national affairs, and apart from certain rare moments the American officer corps has faithfully followed the orders of their civilian superiors.

YouGov's latest research shows, however, that officers in the military are held in much greater esteem than their civilian superiors, and that they are widely viewed as having the best interests of the country in mind instead of their own selfish concerns. 70% of Americans believe that military officers generally want what is best for the country. When it comes to Congressmen, however, 71% of Americans believe that they want what is best for themselves, along with 59% for local politicians. 

29% of Americans could imagine a situation in which they would support the military seizing control of the federal government, while 41% could not imagine such a situation. 

Republicans (43%) are more than twice as likely as Democrats (20%) to say that they could conceive of a situation in which they would support a military coup in the United States. Independents tend to say that they could not (38%) rather than could (29%) imagine supporting a coup.

We present that with no further comment other than to note that Abraham Wyner, director of the undergrad program in statistics at Wharton, suggests you remember that selection bias makes online polling "worse than just about any other way you can put together a poll."

Quem Confia no PIB da China?

Leio hoje que 96% dos economistas consultados pelo Wall Street Journal não confiam no PIB da China. Ora, ora, certa vez eu li que o próprio primeiro-ministro, Le  Keqianq, disse que o PIB da China não era confiável, era "man-made" (fabricado).

Então, quanto será que a China cresce, eu diria que nem eles sabem. Um país que faz cidades fantasmas simplesmente para gastar dinheiro e dizer no papel que está crescendo  não possui dado confiável para nada.

Vejamos texto do Wall Street Journal que saiu na Agência Estado

WSJ: MAIORIA DOS ECONOMISTAS QUESTIONA AUTENTICIDADE DO PIB DA CHINA

Washington, 11/09/2015 - A maioria dos economistas nos EUA acredita que os dados do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) da China não refletem o real estado da segunda maior economia do mundo, segundo pesquisa realizada pelo Wall Street Journal.

Mais de 96% de 64 economistas sondados - levando-se em conta que nem todos responderam todas as questões feitas - questionam a credibilidade do PIB chinês, que, segundo dados de Pequim, teria crescido 7% no segundo trimestre ante igual período do ano passado.

"Os dados oficiais são fabricados para se adequarem à narrativa do governo (chinês)", comentou Stephen Stanley, economista-chefe da Amherst Pierpont Securities.

No levantamento do WSJ, mais da metade dos economistas estimou o crescimento da China em 2015 numa faixa entre 5% e 7%. Já para um terço deles, a expansão do gigante asiático deverá neste ano ser de 3% a 5%. As projeções de crescimento para 2016 variaram bastante, de 2% a mais de 7%.

Preocupações sobre a China e a forte volatilidade dos mercados locais ganharam força nas últimas semanas e, para alguns analistas, podem levar o Federal Reserve (Fed, o banco central norte-americano) a adiar o aumento dos juros básicos, que estão em níveis próximos de zero desde o fim de 2008. A próxima reunião do Fed será nos dias 16 e 17. Fonte: Dow Jones Newswires.

China Prende Executivo e Até Jornalista, para Controlar Mercado.

A China reproduz na economia o que faz na política social, se não vai do jeito que o governo quer, o governo prende e arrebenta.

Agora com o mercadoa cionário chinês teimando em cair, o governo resolveu prender executivos e até jornalistas.

Vejam texto do Zero Hedge:

China Loses All Control: Arrests Journalist, Financial Executive Over Market Crash

by Tyler Durden on 08/26/2015 08:31 -0400

For two months, China has been on a quest to control both the stock market itself and the narrative around the stock market. 

After an unwind in the CNY1 trillion back alley margin lending complex sparked a late June selloff, China cobbled together a plunge protection team run by China Securities Finance (an arm of CSRC) and began intervening in the market.

That effort has cost an estimated CNY900 billion so far.

On July 20, Caijing magazine suggested that CSF was setting up to scale back the market interventions which many believed had kept the SHCOMP from collapsing altogether. Here's what happened next:

That suggestion caused futures to slide in China and in short order, the "rumor" was denied by CSRC. Now, the reporter who penned that story has been arrested for, as Bloomberg put it earlier today, "spreading fake stock and futures trading information."

This comes on the heels of a move by Beijing earlier this week to suppress discussion of Monday's market rout, which, along with the selloffs it triggered in bourses across the globe, was dubbed "Black Monday."

Of course this isn't the first time - and it probably won't be the last - that China has cracked down on the media for "subversive" coverage of financial markets. Early last month, Beijingreportedly banned the use of the phrases "equity disaster" and "rescue the market." That said, throwing reporters in jail marks a new escalation in the war on financial reporters, or, as the managing editor of The South China Morning Post put it, "you already know it's risky to be political journalists in China - Now financial reporter is risky job too."

But reporters weren’t the only ones getting arrested in China overnight in connection with the country’s stock market collapse. As we tipped on Tuesday evening, China has also arrested CITIC Securities Managing Director Xu Gang.

Here’s his profile, via Bloomberg:

Mr. Gang Xu serves as the Managing Director at CITIC Securities Company Limited. Mr. XU serves as Chairman of the brokerage development at CITIC Securities Co., and head of the research department with responsibility for brokerage business as well as research. Mr. Xu joined CITIC Group in 1998 and served as Senior Manager, Deputy General Manager and Executive Director in departments such as the asset management department, the financial products development team, the research department and the equity sales and trading department. Mr. Xu serves as Vice Chairman of Analysis Commission of SAC. Mr. Xu serves as Director of CITIC Wantong Securities Co., Ltd. He holds a Bachelor's Degree in Planned Economics in 1991 from Renmin University of China, a Master's Degree in Economics in 1996, and a Ph.D. in Political Economics in 2000 from Nankai University.

And some context on CITIC's market share:

Details around the arrest are sparse, with Caixain saying only that the investigation revolves around "illegal trading," and indeed, it's certainly possible that Beijing is simply out to send a message by arresting a high profile investment banker for no reason at all. 

That said, it's worth noting that earlier this month, CITIC suspended its short selling business in an effort to "comply with urgent changes in exchange rules." 

So perhaps Mr. Gang Xu failed to fully "comply", in the process becoming no better than a sinister foreign short-selling speculator.

Or perhaps it's much simpler than that. Perhaps he just sold something.

And while US regulators aren't big on throwing powerful bankers in jail, when it comes to censoring the media for spreading "false information" about markets and those who control them, America isn't much better than China:

Filha de Hugo Chavez - A Pessoa mais Rica da Venezuela

Ah, os socialistas, sempre amantes do dinheiro ao extremo, eles não têm Deus religioso, mas o mammon (dinheiro, ambição pela riqueza, descrito na Bíblia)  serve como deus. E o dinheiro é sempre dos outros.

Acima, ela conversa com outro ricaço, Fidel Castro, ela deve estar dizendo a ele onde investir. Ela deixa boa parte da grana no "império americano".

Vejamos texto do Daily Mail:

Being the ex-President's daughter pays off: Hugo Chavez's ambassador daughter is Venezuela's richest woman

• Diario las Americas claims that Maria Gabriela Chavez, 35, has $4.2billion in assets held in American and Andorran banks.
• Hugo Chavez famously declared 'being rich is bad' and during his lifetime railed against the wealthy for being lazy and gluttonous.
• Efforts to determine Chavez's wealth have been made before, without much luck.

By PETE D'AMATO FOR DAILY MAIL ONLINE

The daughter of Hugo Chavez, the former president who once declared 'being rich is bad,' may be the wealthiest woman in Venezuela, according to evidence reportedly in the hands of Venezuelan media outlets.

Maria Gabriela Chavez, 35, the late president's second-oldest daughter, holds assets in American and Andorran banks totaling almost $4.2billion, Diario las Americas reports. 

The figure would make Gabriela Chavez wealthier than media mogul Gustavo Cisneros, whom Forbes named the wealthiest Venezuelan earlier this year with $3.6billion in assets.

The Miami-based newspaper did not detail what evidence there was outlining Chavez's assets, though there have long been rumors she held a sizable fortune. 

Last year, reporter María Elvira Salazar displayed what appeared to be a receipt showing millions in a bank account belonging to Gabriela Chavez withdrawn in the United States.

The receipt displayed the name Frabz Federal Bank, a fictitious bank used in a meme of fake ATM receipts. 

Others close to Chavez managed to build up great personal wealth that was kept outside the petrostate. 

Alejandro Andrade, who served as Venezuela’s treasury minister from 2007 to 2010 and was reportedly a close associate of Chavez, was discovered to have $11.2billion in his name sitting in HSBC accounts in Switzerland, according to documents leaked by whistleblower Hervé Falciani.

During his lifetime, Hugo Chavez denounced wealthy individuals, once railing against the rich for being 'lazy.'

'The rich don't work, they're lazy,' he railed in a speech in 2010. 'Every day they go drinking whiskey - almost every day - and drugs, cocaine, they travel.'

After her father's death in 2013 and until her appointment to the United Nations as alternate ambassador, Chavez continued to live in the presidential mansion, forcing the current president Nicolas Maduro to remain at the vice presidential home.

El Comercio reported in 2014 that opposition congressman Carlos Berrisbeitía claimed the daughters of Chavez and Maduro, were costing the Venezuelan state $3.6million a day