Fonte: aqui
Mostrando postagens com marcador aquecimento global. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador aquecimento global. Mostrar todas as postagens
02 dezembro 2023
08 janeiro 2019
Exxon e o Aquecimento 3
Durante anos a Exxon divulgou demonstrações contábeis onde na mensuração do ativo não era considerada a questão da mudança climática. Recentemente, os promotores do caso usaram uma lei de 1921 contra a empresa. A SEC não adotou nenhuma medida contra a empresa, mas nesta segunda-feira, a Suprema Corte avançou no cerco, informou a Reuters. O procurador-geral de Massachusetts irá obter os registros da Exxon Mobil relativos ao reconhecimento, por parte da empresa, dos efeitos que os combustíveis fósseis desempenham na mudança climática.
A empresa tinha entrado com recurso na Suprema Corte sobre a decisão de um tribunal do estado de Massachusetts. Além dele, o procurador-geral de Nova Iorque também está em litígio contra a empresa.
04 fevereiro 2018
Ajude o ambiente, seja vegano
No livro "Quando Roubar um Banco", de Levitt e Dubner (autores de Freakonomics) uma informação realmente impressionante.Antes de mais nada o livro trata de uma coletânea de artigos publicados no blog dos autores. Em um texto, sobre a questão do aquecimento global, McWilliams faz uma crítica aos ambientalistas e suas propostas de combater o aquecimento global. Eis um trecho com o argumento de McWilliams:
o veganismo representa o caminho mais eficaz para conter as mudanças climáticas globais. Os elementos de comprovação nesse sentido são respeitáveis. Segundo o estudo, cultivar uma dieta vegana é sete vezes mais eficiente na redução das emissões do que optar por uma dieta com base em carne de produção local. Uma dieta vegana global (de colheitas convencionais) reduziria as emissões em 87% em comparação com os meros 8% no caso de "carne e laticínios sustentáveis"
O ponto central do argumento é que a dieta vegana reduziria as emissões provocadas pela pecuária, a maior fonte de emissão de gáscarbônico metano. Mas por que os ambientalistas não chamam a atenção para este fato? A razão estaria, entre outros pontos, pelo fato deles serem carnívoros e que o combate a um gasoduto tem muito mais repercussão nos meios de comunicação.
o veganismo representa o caminho mais eficaz para conter as mudanças climáticas globais. Os elementos de comprovação nesse sentido são respeitáveis. Segundo o estudo, cultivar uma dieta vegana é sete vezes mais eficiente na redução das emissões do que optar por uma dieta com base em carne de produção local. Uma dieta vegana global (de colheitas convencionais) reduziria as emissões em 87% em comparação com os meros 8% no caso de "carne e laticínios sustentáveis"
O ponto central do argumento é que a dieta vegana reduziria as emissões provocadas pela pecuária, a maior fonte de emissão de gás
13 setembro 2017
Exxon e o aquecimento
Há décadas a empresa ExxonMobil enfrenta uma grande polêmica sobre o impacto das atividades de empresas petrolíferas na mudança do clima. Na década de setenta, a empresa chegou a patrocinar pesquisas sobre o assunto. Mas somente em 2014 chegou a reconhecer o risco da mudança do clima, de maneira tímida. A empresa, no entanto, se opôs ao protocolo de Quioto e tentou influenciar medidas sobre o assunto. Pelo contrário, a ExxonMobil fundou um grupo de pressão, colocou dinheiro para pressionar contra as medidas favoráveis a questão ambiental e usou táticas de desinformação.
Ao divulgar um relatório com seus resultados, uma empresa deve informar os riscos existentes. Este é o grande problema da empresa, conforme destacamos anteriormente. A ExxonMobil não reconhece o risco potencial de não ter condições de explorar suas reservas em razão da pressão pública contra a emissão provocada pelo petróleo. Isto significa que seu ativo, neste caso as reservas de petróleo, estão superestimadas. Ou seja, a empresa deveria amortizar parte destas reservas. Em março de 2016 a Comissão de Valores Mobiliários dos Estados Unidos, a SEC, determinou que a empresa incluísse a informação de como a rentabilidade seria afetada pela mudança no clima. Ao mesmo tempo, iniciou-se uma investigação; a empresa afirma que isto tem motivos políticos.
Um artigo, publicado em agosto de 2017, confirmou que a empresa apresentou informações de baixa qualidade sobre o aquecimento global. Os pesquisadores estudaram 187 documentos e afirmaram que desde 1979 os cientistas da empresa já sabiam da relação entre a queima de petróleo e o aquecimento global.
A empresa tenta-se defender, mas o cerco cresce. O procurador-geral de Nova York, Eric Schneiderman, solicitou informações. E está analisando se os investidores foram induzidos ao erro em razão dos ativos superestimados. O processo também deve respingar no auditor, a PwC. O foco tem sido a análise e mensuração dos ativos da empresa, assim como as projeções dos preços e dos custos. Schneiderman usou o termo “fraude” ao falar do assunto. A empresa e a PwC recusaram comentar para a Bloomberg. Para o procurador, a empresa usou dois dados, um público e outro secreto, para determinar o impacto do aquecimento global nas reservas.
Al Capone: preso por fraude fiscal
Ao divulgar um relatório com seus resultados, uma empresa deve informar os riscos existentes. Este é o grande problema da empresa, conforme destacamos anteriormente. A ExxonMobil não reconhece o risco potencial de não ter condições de explorar suas reservas em razão da pressão pública contra a emissão provocada pelo petróleo. Isto significa que seu ativo, neste caso as reservas de petróleo, estão superestimadas. Ou seja, a empresa deveria amortizar parte destas reservas. Em março de 2016 a Comissão de Valores Mobiliários dos Estados Unidos, a SEC, determinou que a empresa incluísse a informação de como a rentabilidade seria afetada pela mudança no clima. Ao mesmo tempo, iniciou-se uma investigação; a empresa afirma que isto tem motivos políticos.
Um artigo, publicado em agosto de 2017, confirmou que a empresa apresentou informações de baixa qualidade sobre o aquecimento global. Os pesquisadores estudaram 187 documentos e afirmaram que desde 1979 os cientistas da empresa já sabiam da relação entre a queima de petróleo e o aquecimento global.
A empresa tenta-se defender, mas o cerco cresce. O procurador-geral de Nova York, Eric Schneiderman, solicitou informações. E está analisando se os investidores foram induzidos ao erro em razão dos ativos superestimados. O processo também deve respingar no auditor, a PwC. O foco tem sido a análise e mensuração dos ativos da empresa, assim como as projeções dos preços e dos custos. Schneiderman usou o termo “fraude” ao falar do assunto. A empresa e a PwC recusaram comentar para a Bloomberg. Para o procurador, a empresa usou dois dados, um público e outro secreto, para determinar o impacto do aquecimento global nas reservas.
11 fevereiro 2017
27 janeiro 2017
Aquecimento Global
Abaixo, vídeo da Nasa mostrando o aquecimento global do século XIX até os dias de hoje.
08 março 2013
Você acredita em aquecimento global?
Primeiro uma entrevista com Luiz Carlos Molion e, depois, um texto do historiador britânico Paul Johnson:
It is a pity Karl Popper did not live to see that Global Warming fitted perfectly into his model of a pseudo-theory.
When I was an undergraduate the philosopher I studied most carefully was Karl Popper, especially his writings on the evaluation of evidence and criteria to distinguish a genuine scientific theory from a false one. He made two key points. First, a theory must include the falsifiability principle. It must be susceptible to empirical tests and, if it fails to meet them, be scrapped. He gave as an example of a genuine theory Einstein’s General Relativity of 1915. Einstein insisted that it must survive three practical tests, and if it failed any one of them be dropped as untrue. In fact it passed triumphantly all three, beginning in 1919, and many other since.
Popper argued that prima facie evidence of a bogus theory was the practice of altering or enlarging it, by its authors, to accommodate new evidence since its original formulation. This, he argued, had happened in the case of Marxism and, still more, Freudianism. Scientific theories, he argued, must be very precise and scientific to be of any use. Marxism and Freudianism were just portmanteau notions into which virtually any kind of phenomena could be made to fit. Hence Marxism led to political and economic disaster areas like the Soviet Union, and Freudianism to a stupendous waste of time and money.
It is a pity Popper did not live to see that Global Warming fit perfectly into his model of a pseudo-theory. It is vaguely and imprecisely formulated. It fails the falsifiability test, because all new evidence is made to fit by enlarging the theory. When originally formulated in the 1980s, Global Warming produced by man-made emissions would lead, it was argued, to much higher temperatures and desiccation. There would be a huge drop in rainfall and an imperative need to build seawater desalination plants. I recall an unusually dry summer (1987) in the English Lake District, normally rainy, was triumphantly presented as “absolute proof” of the theory. This autumn, the Lake District had an unusually wet spell, culminating in floods that engulfed the delightful town of Cockermouth, where Wordsworth was born. This was pounced upon by Global Warming “experts” as “absolute proof” of their theory, and paraded as such in Copenhagen.
The fact is that the theory has now been expanded to include any unusual form of weather, anywhere. Hot summers, warm winters — global warming. Cold weather at an unusual time of year — global warming. Drought, storms, floods — global warming. No snow on the ski slopes, sudden snow, out of season snow, very heavy snow — global warming. Of course in countries like Japan or the UK, where unusual, unpredictable, and tiresomely variable weather is the norm (it was first commented on in the UK by the Venerable Bede in the eighth century), the public does not swallow global warming, and polls show majorities of 55 to 60 percent reject it.
Of course vested interests accept it. It is regarded as a splendid way of damaging the American economy, by the same kind of left-wing intellectuals who supported the Club of Rome in the 1960s, which argued that world resources were on the brink of exhaustion. It is a form of pantheism and a useful emotional outlet for people who have renounced Judeo-Christianity. If someone is anti-American, left-liberal, and atheist, it is virtually certain he (or even she: women are notoriously more skeptical about it than men are) is a Global Warmer.
THEN AGAIN, GLOBAL WARMING NOW HAS a powerful, worldwide institutional substructure. If a media outlet has an environment correspondent, or a university a Department of Climate Studies, or a government a Ministry of Global Warming, those involved are certain to be not just believers but fanatical propagandists for the cause. Their livelihood depends on it. I calculate that the lobby now includes over 20,000 full-time, well-paid professionals whose entire life is spent in pushing “proofs.” The existence of this enormous phalanx of well-placed, articulate enthusiasts has inevitably led to the capture of powerful institutions — in Britain, for instance, the Meteorological Office, the Royal Society, and the BBC, together with many universities and newspapers. It used to be supposed that scientists, or those calling themselves such, were incorruptible and guided purely by genuine convictions based on objective evidence. But scientists behave just like politicians if the pressure and prizes make it worth their while to conform.
So vast sums of money will continue to be spent on an unproven and unprovable theory, predicting a global catastrophe from the realms of fantasy. The money could be much more profitably spent on space exploration. This is a genuine science and could turn out to be useful, even vital. The planet Earth, though not threatened with destruction by man-made global warming, is by no means indestructible. There are many unpredictable events within our solar system, and still more outside it, that could make Earth uninhabitable by humans. A meteorite of sufficient size could destroy it entirely. A giant sunspot could produce precisely the catastrophic climate change the lobby falsely claims is being created by man’s “emissions.” There are hundreds of fatal possibilities astrophysicists can imagine, and thousands more, no doubt, that could occur.
In the long term, it is desirable that the human race, faced with the prospect of extinction on Earth, should prepare an escape route for itself to another inhabitable planet. In order to do this we must explore the universe far more thoroughly and exhaustively than we have done up till now, and equally important, develop the concept of mass space travel and colonization schemes. Mankind has done this before, notably in the 15th century, when the threat of plague and starvation in Europe led to the successful crossing of the Atlantic and colonization in the Americas. We need to repeat the imaginative effort of the late medieval Spanish, Portuguese, and Genoans in navigation, technology, and courage, but on an infinitely greater scale. This would be a worthy cause for the united resources of the human race to combine in furthering — the colonization of the universe.
It may be a distant goal, but it is a practical one, and in pursuing it we would do more to unite the human race in purposeful activity than anything else so far proposed. By contrast, combating a largely imaginary threat of global warming is just as costly, as well as scientifically unsound, technologically impossible, and, not least, divisive
THE REAL WAY TO SAVE THE PLANET
It is a pity Karl Popper did not live to see that Global Warming fitted perfectly into his model of a pseudo-theory.
The Copenhagen Summit was bound to fail if only because politicians are beginning to realize that ordinary voters do not believe in man-made Global Warming, as polls plainly show. They did not believe in Marxist Dialectical Materialism either, or Freudianism. These three pseudo-sciences have a lot in common, not least their ability to inspire a religious kind of belief in highly educated people who lack a genuine creed.
When I was an undergraduate the philosopher I studied most carefully was Karl Popper, especially his writings on the evaluation of evidence and criteria to distinguish a genuine scientific theory from a false one. He made two key points. First, a theory must include the falsifiability principle. It must be susceptible to empirical tests and, if it fails to meet them, be scrapped. He gave as an example of a genuine theory Einstein’s General Relativity of 1915. Einstein insisted that it must survive three practical tests, and if it failed any one of them be dropped as untrue. In fact it passed triumphantly all three, beginning in 1919, and many other since.
Popper argued that prima facie evidence of a bogus theory was the practice of altering or enlarging it, by its authors, to accommodate new evidence since its original formulation. This, he argued, had happened in the case of Marxism and, still more, Freudianism. Scientific theories, he argued, must be very precise and scientific to be of any use. Marxism and Freudianism were just portmanteau notions into which virtually any kind of phenomena could be made to fit. Hence Marxism led to political and economic disaster areas like the Soviet Union, and Freudianism to a stupendous waste of time and money.
It is a pity Popper did not live to see that Global Warming fit perfectly into his model of a pseudo-theory. It is vaguely and imprecisely formulated. It fails the falsifiability test, because all new evidence is made to fit by enlarging the theory. When originally formulated in the 1980s, Global Warming produced by man-made emissions would lead, it was argued, to much higher temperatures and desiccation. There would be a huge drop in rainfall and an imperative need to build seawater desalination plants. I recall an unusually dry summer (1987) in the English Lake District, normally rainy, was triumphantly presented as “absolute proof” of the theory. This autumn, the Lake District had an unusually wet spell, culminating in floods that engulfed the delightful town of Cockermouth, where Wordsworth was born. This was pounced upon by Global Warming “experts” as “absolute proof” of their theory, and paraded as such in Copenhagen.
The fact is that the theory has now been expanded to include any unusual form of weather, anywhere. Hot summers, warm winters — global warming. Cold weather at an unusual time of year — global warming. Drought, storms, floods — global warming. No snow on the ski slopes, sudden snow, out of season snow, very heavy snow — global warming. Of course in countries like Japan or the UK, where unusual, unpredictable, and tiresomely variable weather is the norm (it was first commented on in the UK by the Venerable Bede in the eighth century), the public does not swallow global warming, and polls show majorities of 55 to 60 percent reject it.
Of course vested interests accept it. It is regarded as a splendid way of damaging the American economy, by the same kind of left-wing intellectuals who supported the Club of Rome in the 1960s, which argued that world resources were on the brink of exhaustion. It is a form of pantheism and a useful emotional outlet for people who have renounced Judeo-Christianity. If someone is anti-American, left-liberal, and atheist, it is virtually certain he (or even she: women are notoriously more skeptical about it than men are) is a Global Warmer.
THEN AGAIN, GLOBAL WARMING NOW HAS a powerful, worldwide institutional substructure. If a media outlet has an environment correspondent, or a university a Department of Climate Studies, or a government a Ministry of Global Warming, those involved are certain to be not just believers but fanatical propagandists for the cause. Their livelihood depends on it. I calculate that the lobby now includes over 20,000 full-time, well-paid professionals whose entire life is spent in pushing “proofs.” The existence of this enormous phalanx of well-placed, articulate enthusiasts has inevitably led to the capture of powerful institutions — in Britain, for instance, the Meteorological Office, the Royal Society, and the BBC, together with many universities and newspapers. It used to be supposed that scientists, or those calling themselves such, were incorruptible and guided purely by genuine convictions based on objective evidence. But scientists behave just like politicians if the pressure and prizes make it worth their while to conform.
So vast sums of money will continue to be spent on an unproven and unprovable theory, predicting a global catastrophe from the realms of fantasy. The money could be much more profitably spent on space exploration. This is a genuine science and could turn out to be useful, even vital. The planet Earth, though not threatened with destruction by man-made global warming, is by no means indestructible. There are many unpredictable events within our solar system, and still more outside it, that could make Earth uninhabitable by humans. A meteorite of sufficient size could destroy it entirely. A giant sunspot could produce precisely the catastrophic climate change the lobby falsely claims is being created by man’s “emissions.” There are hundreds of fatal possibilities astrophysicists can imagine, and thousands more, no doubt, that could occur.
In the long term, it is desirable that the human race, faced with the prospect of extinction on Earth, should prepare an escape route for itself to another inhabitable planet. In order to do this we must explore the universe far more thoroughly and exhaustively than we have done up till now, and equally important, develop the concept of mass space travel and colonization schemes. Mankind has done this before, notably in the 15th century, when the threat of plague and starvation in Europe led to the successful crossing of the Atlantic and colonization in the Americas. We need to repeat the imaginative effort of the late medieval Spanish, Portuguese, and Genoans in navigation, technology, and courage, but on an infinitely greater scale. This would be a worthy cause for the united resources of the human race to combine in furthering — the colonization of the universe.
It may be a distant goal, but it is a practical one, and in pursuing it we would do more to unite the human race in purposeful activity than anything else so far proposed. By contrast, combating a largely imaginary threat of global warming is just as costly, as well as scientifically unsound, technologically impossible, and, not least, divisive
24 dezembro 2012
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
Postagens
