"Não avançamos para a verdade: mudamos de dogma, simplesmente".
Via A Arte da Fuga, algumas coisas importantes:
"Conclusion
In sum, the Stern Review is very selective in the studies it quotes on the impacts of climate change. The selection bias is not random, but emphasizes the most pessimistic studies. The discount rate used is lower than the official recommendations by HM Treasury. Results are occasionally misinterpreted. The report claims that a cost-benefit analysis was done, but none was carried out. The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent.
This is not to say that climate change is not a problem, nor that greenhouse gas emissions should not be reduced. There are sound arguments for emission reduction. However, unsound analyses like the Stern Review only provide fodder for those skeptical of climate change and climate policy."
E
"Why does all this matter? It matters because, with clever marketing and sensationalist headlines, the Stern review is about to edge its way into our collective consciousness. The suggestion that flooding will overwhelm us has already been picked up by commentators, yet going back to the background reports properly shows declining costs from flooding and fewer people at risk. The media is now quoting Mr. Stern's suggestion that climate change will wreak financial devastation that will wipe 20% off GDP, explicitly evoking memories of past financial catastrophes such as the Great Depression or World War II; yet the review clearly tells us that costs will be 0% now and just 3% in 2100."
Seria interessante saber-se quanto custará, ou terá custado, à humanidade o mau jornalismo. Dos dogmas, sabemos o custo, em mortos e em dinheiro. Mas do mau jornalismo?
«On n'écrit pas parce qu'on a quelque chose à dire
mais parce qu'on a envie de dire quelque chose.»
(E. M. Cioran)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário
Não prometo responder a todos os comentários, mas prometo que fico grato por todos.