Arquivo da tag: Incerteza

The right’s stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left (Guardian)

07/02/2012Uncategorizedciência, Clima, Cognição, Cultura, Discriminação, discurso ambiental, Incerteza, Mudanças climáticas, Política, Psicologia, Racismo, Religiãorenzotaddei

Conservativism may be the refuge of the dim. But the room for rightwing ideas is made by those too timid to properly object

by George Monbiot, The Guardian

Self-deprecating, too liberal for their own good, today’s progressives stand back and watch, hands over their mouths, as the social vivisectionists of the right slice up a living society to see if its component parts can survive in isolation. Tied up in knots of reticence and self-doubt, they will not shout stop. Doing so requires an act of interruption, of presumption, for which they no longer possess a vocabulary.

Perhaps it is in the same spirit of liberal constipation that, with the exception of Charlie Brooker, we have been too polite to mention the Canadian study published last month in the journal Psychological Science, which revealed that people with conservative beliefs are likely to be of low intelligence. Paradoxically it was the Daily Mail that brought it to the attention of British readers last week. It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact.

It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly “different” others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.

But, drawing on a sample size of several thousand, correcting for both education and socioeconomic status, the new study looks embarrassingly robust. Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the “critical pathway” from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to “rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order” and “emphasise the maintenance of the status quo”. Even for someone not yet renowned for liberal reticence, this feels hard to write.

This is not to suggest that all conservatives are stupid. There are some very clever people in government, advising politicians, running thinktanks and writing for newspapers, who have acquired power and influence by promoting rightwing ideologies.

But what we now see among their parties – however intelligent their guiding spirits may be – is the abandonment of any pretence of high-minded conservatism. On both sides of the Atlantic, conservative strategists have discovered that there is no pool so shallow that several million people won’t drown in it. Whether they are promoting the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US, that man-made climate change is an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy, or that the deficit results from the greed of the poor, they now appeal to the basest, stupidest impulses, and find that it does them no harm in the polls.

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to what two former Republican ideologues, David Frum and Mike Lofgren, have been saying. Frum warns that “conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics”. The result is a “shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology” which has “ominous real-world consequences for American society”.

Lofgren complains that “the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital centre today”. The Republican party, with its “prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science” is appealing to what he calls the “low-information voter”, or the “misinformation voter”. While most office holders probably don’t believe the “reactionary and paranoid claptrap” they peddle, “they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base”.

The madness hasn’t gone as far in the UK, but the effects of the Conservative appeal to stupidity are making themselves felt. This week the Guardian reported that recipients of disability benefits, scapegoated by the government as scroungers, blamed for the deficit, now find themselves subject to a new level of hostility and threats from other people.

These are the perfect conditions for a billionaires’ feeding frenzy. Any party elected by misinformed, suggestible voters becomes a vehicle for undisclosed interests. A tax break for the 1% is dressed up as freedom for the 99%. The regulation that prevents big banks and corporations exploiting us becomes an assault on the working man and woman. Those of us who discuss man-made climate change are cast as elitists by people who happily embrace the claims of Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson or thinktanks funded by ExxonMobil or the Koch brothers: now the authentic voices of the working class.

But when I survey this wreckage I wonder who the real idiots are. Confronted with mass discontent, the once-progressive major parties, as Thomas Frank laments in his latest book Pity the Billionaire, triangulate and accommodate, hesitate and prevaricate, muzzled by what he calls “terminal niceness”. They fail to produce a coherent analysis of what has gone wrong and why, or to make an uncluttered case for social justice, redistribution and regulation. The conceptual stupidities of conservatism are matched by the strategic stupidities of liberalism.

Yes, conservatism thrives on low intelligence and poor information. But the liberals in politics on both sides of the Atlantic continue to back off, yielding to the supremacy of the stupid. It’s turkeys all the way down.

Twitter: @georgemonbiot

Climate and the culture war (The Washington Post)

07/02/2012UncategorizedClima, Cultura, discurso ambiental, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Mudanças climáticas, Política, Religiãorenzotaddei

By Michael Gerson, Published: January 16, 2012

The Washington Post

The attempt by Newt Gingrich to cover his tracks on climate change has been one of the shabbier little episodes of the 2012 presidential campaign. His forthcoming sequel to “A Contract with the Earth” was to feature a chapter by Katharine Hayhoe, a young professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas Tech University. Hayhoe is a scientist, an evangelical Christian and a moderate voice warning of climate disruption.

Then conservative media got wind. Rush Limbaugh dismissed Hayhoe as a “climate babe.” An Iowa voter pressed Gingrich on the topic. “That’s not going to be in the book,” he responded. “We told them to kill it.” Hayhoe learned this news just as she was passing under the bus.

A theory about the role of carbon dioxide in climate patterns has joined abortion and gay marriage as a culture war controversy. Climate scientists are attacked as greenshirts and watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside). Skeptics are derided as flat-earthers. Reputations are assaulted and the e-mails of scientists hacked.

A few years ago, the intensity of this argument would have been difficult to predict. In 2005, then-Gov. Mitt Romney joined a regional agreement to limit carbon emissions. In 2007, Gingrich publicly endorsed a cap-and-trade system for carbon.

What explains the recent, bench-clearing climate brawl? A scientific debate has been sucked into a broader national argument about the role of government. Many political liberals have seized on climate disruption as an excuse for policies they supported long before climate science became compelling — greater federal regulation and mandated lifestyle changes. Conservatives have also tended to equate climate science with liberal policies and therefore reject both.

The result is a contest of questioned motives. In the conservative view, the real liberal goal is to undermine free markets and national sovereignty (through international environmental agreements). In the liberal view, the real conservative goal is to conduct a war on science and defend fossil fuel interests. On the margin of each movement, the critique is accurate, supplying partisans with plenty of ammunition.

No cause has been more effectively sabotaged by its political advocates. Climate scientists, in my experience, are generally careful, well-intentioned and confused to be at the center of a global controversy. Investigations of hacked e-mails have revealed evidence of frustration — and perhaps of fudging but not of fraud. It is their political defenders who often discredit their work through hyperbole and arrogance. As environmental writer Michael Shellenberger points out, “The rise in the number of Americans telling pollsters that news of global warming was being exaggerated began virtually concurrently with the release of Al Gore’s movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’”

The resistance of many conservatives to arguments about climate disruption is magnified by class and religion. Tea Party types are predisposed to question self-important elites. Evangelicals have long been suspicious of secular science, which has traditionally been suspicious of religious influence. Among some groups, skepticism about global warming has become a symbol of social identity — the cultural equivalent of a gun rack or an ichthus.

But however interesting this sociology may be, it has nothing to do with the science at issue. Even if all environmentalists were socialists and secularists and insufferable and partisan to the core, it would not alter the reality of the Earth’s temperature.

Since the 1950s, global temperatures have increased about nine-tenths of a degree Celsius — the recent conclusion of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project — which coincides with a large increase in greenhouse gasses produced by humans. This explanation is most consistent with the location of warming in the atmosphere. It best accounts for changing crop zones, declining species, thinning sea ice and rising sea levels. Scientists are not certain about the pace of future warming — estimates range from 2 degrees C to 5 degrees C over the next century. But warming is already proceeding faster than many plants and animals can adapt to.

These facts do not dictate a specific political response. With Japan, Canada and Russia withdrawing from the Kyoto process, the construction of a global regulatory regime for carbon emissions seems unlikely and may have never been possible. The broader use of nuclear power, the preservation of carbon-consuming rain forests and the encouragement of new energy technologies are more promising.

But any rational approach requires some distance between science and ideology. The extraction and burning of dead plant matter is not a moral good — or the proper cause for a culture war.

michaelgerson@washpost.com

Environment agency becomes crunch issue in Rio talks (Agence France-Presse)

06/02/2012Uncategorizedambientalismo, Clima, discurso ambiental, Economia, Incerteza, Mudanças climáticas, ONU, Política, Políticas públicas, UNDPrenzotaddei

By Richard Ingham (AFP) – 05.Feb.2012

PARIS — The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) is emerging as a hot issue in preparations for June’s Rio conference, styled as a once-in-a-generation chance to restore a sick planet to good health.

The US is fighting a proposal, backed according to France by least 100 countries, for transforming UNEP from a poorly noticed, second-string unit into a planetary super-agency.

Environmentalists have long complained that Nairobi-based UNEP, set up in 1972 as an office of the UN and with a membership of only 58 nations, lacks clout to deal with the globe’s worsening ills.

These range from climate change, water stress and over-fishing to species loss, deforestation and ozone-layer depletion.

But the environmental mess also coincides with the crisis of capitalism, which greens say is blind to the cost for Nature in its relentless quest for growth.

The fateful intertwining of these problems points to a unique chance of a solution at the June 20-22 “Rio+20” conference, they argue.

With possibly scores of leaders in attendance, the 20-year follow-up to the famous Earth Summit has the declared aim of making growth both greener and sustainable.

“The new capitalism which emerges from the crisis has to be environmental, or it won’t be new,” French Ecology Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet said on Tuesday.

The key vehicle would be UNEP, which according to the vaguely-worded French proposal would be changed into the World Environment Organisation.

It would become the UN’s 16th “specialised” agency alongside the World Health Organisation (WHO), Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and so on.

To the outsider, this may sound at best like a bit of terminological tinkering — at worst, just another bureaucracy-breeding machine.

Experts, though, say status change could be surprisingly far-reaching.

Specialised UN agencies have high degrees of autonomy, enabling them to set agendas, frame international norms, stir up interest in dormant issues and sometimes poke their noses into areas of national sovereignty.

At its most ambitious, a World Environment Organisation would embrace not just the member-states which fund it but also business, green and social groups, becoming a very loud voice indeed.

It could intrude into sensitive areas such as trans-border use of water resources, fishery quotas and habitat use — and even monitor environmental standards for trade in goods and services.

According to Kosciusko-Morizet’s ministry, more than 30 European countries back the French proposal, along with 54 countries in Africa, plus Thailand, Malaysia, Nepal, Chile, Uruguay and others.

But in a US presidential election year where green issues — especially foreign ones — are easily trumped by domestic politics, Washington has set down a marker.

“We do not believe that international efforts on the environment and sustainable development would be improved by creating a new specialised agency on the environment,” a State Department official told AFP.

“We prefer to work towards a strengthened role for UNEP, as well as better coordination across the UN system in integrating environment into development, and in working towards sustainable development.”

Canada, like the US, says it prefers a smarter, better-connected UNEP.

Tensions over this are now emerging at preparatory talks on the “zero draft,” a document that will be finessed into June’s all-important summit communique.

“The Americans have come out guns blazing,” said Farooq Ullah, head of policy and advocacy at a London-based NGO called Stakeholder Forum.

“The risk, of course, is not necessarily that they would veto it (a super-UNEP) but that they would pull out their funding for it. A big part of UNEP’s funding comes from the Americans, so it would be a major blow,” he stressed.

Could the dispute rip Rio apart? Or could it doom it to dismal compromise, as many view the outcome of 2009 Copenhagen climate summit?

“The biggest risk with these things that have a lot of interest is that if you push too far too quickly and it becomes too contentious, it will just be negotiated out,” warned Ullah.

Lucien Chabason of a French thinktank, the Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), said the outcome did not have to be dramatic.

“One can imagine a mixture of the two ideas, in which Rio adopts a position in principle to beef up UNEP and launch a negotiation process,” he said.

Preview of “Owners of the Water”

06/02/2012UncategorizedAgricultura, Índios, discurso ambiental, Economia, Incerteza, Racismo, Violênciarenzotaddei

Farmers in Mozambique trying to adapt farming to climate change (PRI.org)

06/02/2012UncategorizedAgricultura, Clima, Economia, Incerteza, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Política, Previsãorenzotaddei

Published 29 January, 2012 11:15:00 Living on Earth

Rui Alberto Campira hoes the soil. He’s part of a group of farmers who received a grant from Save the Children to grow cash crops. (Photo by Rowan Moore Gerety.)

As the rain and water in Mozambique becomes less predictable and less suited to subsistence farming, aid groups and the local government are trying to help some change the way they farm so they’re not so paralyzed by a flood or a drought. But there’s a lot of work to do.

Over the past two decades, Mozambique has suffered more than its fair share of weather disasters.

The east African nation has seen more devastating cyclones, droughts and floods than any country on the continent. Farmers in Mozambique have been particularly hard hit. This year alone, torrential rains in the mountains sent flood waters onto fields below, submerging tens of thousands of acres of crops.

And now, farmers are in the midst of another rainy season, which started in December.

Officials at Mozambique’s National Institute for Disaster Management have to prepare for rescue operations this time of year. Figueredo de Araujo, the institute’s information manager, said the emergency operations center is equipped with rescue boats as well as warehouses with various goods for humanitarian assistance: maize flour, tents, tarps, boots and rain coats among them.

Caia, where Mozambique’s main highway crosses the Zambezi river, sits in the middle of a vast, flat, floodplain that is home to nearly a million people. In 2000, the area was hit by the worst flooding in memory. The floods killed 700 people, displaced 100,000, and cost Mozambique a 1.5 percent loss in GDP through destruction of crops.

To Belem Monteiro, the emergency center’s director, much of Mozambique’s misfortune is a matter of geography.

“The fact that we have a problem is not news to us: given its location, Mozambique could only be vulnerable to these changes in climate,” Monteiro said.

Nearly 80 percent of Mozambican families are subsistence farmers, relying on rain-fed agriculture to produce their food. After the 2000 floods, farmers near the Zambezi River repeatedly lost their homes and crops.

“In the past, it happened every five years, now we have annual emergencies, which shows that the situation has changed,” Monteiro said.

But that’s presented a major challenge for the disaster management institute, which was conceived to intervene during freak emergencies, but has been forced to evolve to a permanent mission.

Some 30 miles from Caia, a resettlement zone called Tchetcha Um is home to some 5,000 families who were moved to higher ground. The organization Save the Children has partnered with the government in a program promoting livelihood resilience, diversifying their income sources, said Clemente Lourenço, a project officer for the group.

Farmer Rui Alberto Campira received a grant from Save the Children in 2009, which enabled he and 11 other farmers to built a 5-acre farm where they can grow crops for both consumption at home and sale at the local market. Campira says the soil is great for cash crops.

“It’s good. Especially for tomatoes. Tomatoes, onions, cabbage, collard greens. That’s what we usually plant here. There we only plant maize. Maize and sweet potatoes,” Campira said of his former home.

The land he’s farming now will also flood during the rainy season, but the irrigation system the grant enabled him to install allows him to farm during the dry season, when cash crops would typically die.

About 55 associations like Campira’s have formed in Caia district, not just growing cash crops, but trading in fish, beans, and clothing, and using animal traction to plow fields. Save the Children funds about 4500 farmers across three provinces.

Joao Novage is raising seven goats, as part of another association. The grant originally bought 40 goats that have in turn born another 20.

“When I see that I have 12 or 13 goats, I’ll take four and sell them to buy school supplies and clothes for my children. Children are our wealth. They’ll bring a better future for us,” Novage said.

Though the projects have been wildly successful, everyone admits they serve an insignificant portion of the population at this point. It remains to be seen if they can be expanded to make a measurable difference in the unger and poverty around this portion of east Africa.

Colombia prosecutors question ‘shaman rain payment’ (BBC)

19/01/2012UncategorizedAntropologia, Índios, Clima, Discriminação, Futebol, Incerteza, Meteorologia, Previsão, Racismorenzotaddei

18 January 2012 Last updated at 16:49 GMT

By Arturo Wallace
BBC Mundo, Bogota

The tournament, won by Brazil, was held across Colombia with the final in Bogota

Colombian prosecutors are investigating why organisers paid a “shaman” $2,000 (£1,400) to keep rain away from the closing ceremony of the Fifa U-20 World Cup held in the country last year.

The inquiry was launched after cost overruns totalling $1m came to light.

But the focus of their questions is a 64-year-old man who says he uses dowsing to stave off or attract rain.

The event’s organisers defended their decision to use him, noting that the final event was indeed rain-free.

The “rain-stopper” in question, Jorge Elias Gonzalez, has been dubbed a “shaman” or medicine man by the Colombian media.

A dark joke doing the rounds in the capital, Bogota, asks why the shaman was not also hired to minimise the impact of the last rainy season, which killed 477 people and affected some 2.6 million Colombians.

Yet more cynical voices have said that, given the corruption allegations involving the Bogota authorities in recent years, Mr Gonzalez should be praised as the only contractor to deliver what he promised.

The spectacular closing ceremony in Bogota’s El Campin stadium on 20 August last year remained dry – a stark contrast with the opening event in Barranquilla a month earlier that was drenched.

Ana Marta de Pizarro, the anthropologist and theatre director who was in charge of the ceremony, used this argument to defend the hiring of a rain stopper.

“Had it rained, the event would not have taken place. It didn’t rain on the ceremony, it was successful and I would use him again if I needed to,” she said.

And Ms Pizarro also said Mr Gonzalez had been hired in the past to ensure Bogota’s International Theatre Festival was rain-free.

In an interview with a local radio station on Wednesday, Mr Gonzalez also said he was also hired to keep the rain away from the swearing-in ceremony of President Juan Manuel Santos.

This has, as yet, neither been confirmed nor denied by the president’s office.

Respect

Prosecutors are adamant that Mr Gonzalez’s contract will be investigated.

The procurement law requires efficiency and professionalism in all service providers paid for by public funds “and that doesn’t include shamans”, a statement from the local comptroller’s office said.

“We’ll ask him to explain in which circumstances, how and where he can stop rain,” said the deputy prosecutor, Juan Carlos Forero.

The debate has also drawn in those who want to make sure no public funds are used to pay for any sort of religious rites, and those who want the traditions of indigenous Colombians to be treated with more respect.

In a bizarre twist to the dispute, Mr Gonzalez has always insisted that he is not a shaman.

“I’m not indigenous, so don’t call me a shaman, for I don’t even know what that is. Nor am I a wizard,” he told a local newspaper several years ago.

Mr Gonzalez has said that he can stop or attract rain using dowsing, although he also prays.

Anthropologist Mauricio Pardo believes that by describing him as a shaman, the Colombian media might end up belittling an important indigenous tradition.

“And those traditions deserve to be respected. Even our constitution demands so,” he told BBC Mundo.

Profetas da chuva do sertão, por Raquel de Queiroz

04/01/2012UncategorizedClima, Cultura, Incerteza, Meteorologia, Previsão, Profetas da chuva, Psicologiarenzotaddei

“Vá, por exemplo, ao sertão nordestino, nos meses de novembro e dezembro. O povo, lá não tira os olhos do céu, em procura dos prenúncios. Pequenas nuvens ao poente… pequenas, claro, ainda não é tempo das grandes, mas, se elas se juntam para o sul, quer dizer uma coisa; se aparecem ao poente, a coisa muda. Só o que elas não dizem é que a coisa será essa: como todos os adivinhos do mundo, gostam de se envolver em mistério. E aquelas nuvens inocentes são branquinhas como se fossem feitas só de gelo e neve, não, têm nada a ver com chuva, são só enfeites do céu…” (p. 13)

QUEIROZ, Rachel. Existe outra saída, sim. Fortaleza: Fundação Demócrito Rocha, 2003.

Great apes make sophisticated decisions (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft)

30/12/2011UncategorizedAntropologia, Chimpanzés, Cognição, Incerteza, Macacosrenzotaddei

By Daniel Haun
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

Chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas and bonobos make more sophisticated decisions than was previously thought. Great apes weigh their chances of success, based on what they know and the likelihood to succeed when guessing, according to a study of MPI researcher Daniel Haun, published on December 21 in the online journal PLoS ONE. The findings may provide insight into human decision-making as well.

The authors of the study, led by Daniel Haun of the Max Planck Institutes for Psycholinguistics (Nijmegen) and Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig), investigated the behaviour of all four non-human great ape species. The apes were presented with two banana pieces: a smaller one, which was always reliably in the same place, and a larger one, which was hidden under one of multiple cups, and therefore the riskier choice.

The researchers found that the apes’ choices were regulated by their uncertainty and the probability of success for the risky choice, suggesting sophisticated decision-making. Apes chose the small piece more often when they where uncertain where the large piece was hidden. The lower their chances to guess correctly, the more often they chose the small piece.

Risky choices

The researchers also found that the apes went for the larger piece – and risked getting nothing at all – no less than 50% of the time. This risky decision-making increased to nearly 100% when the size difference between the two banana pieces was largest. While all four species demonstrated sophisticated decision making strategies, chimpanzees and orangutans were overall more likely to make risky choices relative to gorillas and bonobos. The precise reason for this discrepancy remains unknown.

Haun concludes: “Our study adds to the growing evidence that the mental life of the other great apes is much more sophisticated than is often assumed.”

Politics hindering scientists on climate change (The Seattle Times)

30/12/2011UncategorizedClima, Incerteza, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Previsãorenzotaddei

Sunday, December 25, 2011 – Page updated at 08:00 p.m.

By JUSTIN GILLIS
The New York Times

At the end of one of the most bizarre weather years in U.S. history, climate research stands at a crossroads.

Scientists say they could, in theory, do a much better job of answering the question “Did global warming have anything to do with it?” after extreme weather events like the drought in Texas and the floods in New England.

But for many reasons, efforts to put out prompt reports on the causes of extreme weather are essentially languishing. Chief among the difficulties that scientists face: The political environment for new climate-science initiatives has turned hostile, and with the federal budget crisis, money is tight.

And so, as the weather becomes more erratic by the year, the public is left to wonder what is going on.

When 2010 ended, it had seemed as if people had lived through a startling year of weather extremes. But in the United States, if not elsewhere, 2011 has surpassed that.

A typical year in this country features three or four weather disasters whose costs exceed $1 billion each. But this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has tallied a dozen such events, including wildfires in the Southwest, floods in multiple regions of the country and a deadly spring tornado season. And the agency has not finished counting. The final costs are certain to exceed $50 billion.

“I’ve been a meteorologist 30 years and never seen a year that comes close to matching 2011 for the number of astounding, extreme weather events,” Jeffrey Masters, a co-founder of the popular website Weather Underground, said last month. “Looking back in the historical record, which goes back to the late 1800s, I can’t find anything that compares, either.”

Many of the individual events in 2011 do have precedents in the historical record. And the nation’s climate has featured other concentrated periods of extreme weather, including severe cold snaps in the early 20th century and devastating droughts and heat waves in the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s.

But it is unusual, if not unprecedented, for so many extremes to occur in such a short span. The calamities in 2011 included wildfires that scorched millions of acres, extreme flooding in the Upper Midwest and the Mississippi River valley and heat waves that shattered records in many parts of the country. Abroad, huge floods inundated Australia, the Philippines and large parts of Southeast Asia.

A major question nowadays is whether the frequency of particular weather extremes is being affected by human-induced climate change.

Climate science already offers some insight. Researchers have proved the temperature of the Earth’s surface is rising, and they are virtually certain the human release of greenhouse gases, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, is the major reason. For decades, they have predicted this would lead to changes in the frequency of extreme weather events, and statistics show that has begun to happen.

For instance, scientists have long expected a warming atmosphere would result in fewer extremes of low temperature and more extremes of high temperature. In fact, research shows that about two record highs are being set in the U.S. for every record low, and similar trends can be detected in other parts of the world.

Likewise, a well-understood physical law suggests a warming atmosphere should hold more moisture. Scientists have directly measured the moisture in the air and confirmed it is rising, supplying the fuel for heavier rains, snowfalls and other types of storms.

“We are changing the large-scale properties of the atmosphere — we know that beyond a shadow of a doubt,” said Benjamin D. Santer, a leading climate scientist who works at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. “You can’t engage in this vast planetary experiment — warming the surface, warming the atmosphere, moistening the atmosphere — and have no impact on the frequency and duration of extreme events.”

But if the human contribution to heat and precipitation is clear, scientists are on shakier ground analyzing many other events.

Some questions can be answered with focused studies of a specific weather event, but these are often finished years afterward. Lately, scientists have been discussing whether they can do a better job of analyzing events within days or weeks, not years.

“It’s clear we do have the scientific tools and the statistical wherewithal to begin answering these types of questions,” Santer said.

But doing this on a regular basis would probably require new personnel spread across several research teams, along with a strong push by the federal government, which tends to be the major source of financing and direction for climate and weather research. Yet Washington, D.C., is essentially frozen on the subject of climate change.

This year, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tried to push through a reorganization that would have provided better climate forecasts to businesses, citizens and local governments, Republicans in the House of Representatives blocked it.

The idea had originated in the Bush administration, was strongly endorsed by an outside review panel and would have cost no extra money. But the House Republicans, many of whom reject the overwhelming scientific consensus about the causes of global warming, labeled the plan an attempt by the Obama administration to start a “propaganda” arm on climate.

In an interview, Jane Lubchenco, the director of NOAA, rejected that claim and said her agency had been deluged with information requests regarding future climate risks. “It’s truly unfortunate that we are not allowed to become more effective and efficient in delivering that information,” she said.

NOAA does finance research to understand the causes of weather extremes, as do the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. But with the strains on the federal budget, Lubchenco said, “it’s going to be more and more challenging to devote resources to many of our research programs.”

Ocupe a sala de aula? (Valor Econômico)

19/12/2011UncategorizedEconomia, ideologia, Incerteza, Mediação tecnológica, Política, Previsãorenzotaddei

JC e-mail 4408, de 19 de Dezembro de 2011.

Artigo de Dani Rodrik publicado no Valor Econômico de hoje (19).

No início de novembro, um grupo de estudantes abandonou um conhecido curso de Harvard de introdução à economia, “Ciências Econômicas 10”, lecionado por meu colega Greg Mankiw. A reclamação: o curso propaga ideologia conservadora disfarçada de ciência econômica e ajuda a perpetuar a desigualdade social.

Os estudantes fazem parte do crescente coro de protestos contra as ciências econômicas modernas da forma como são ensinadas nas principais instituições acadêmicas do mundo. As ciências econômicas sempre tiveram seus críticos, é claro, mas a crise financeira e suas sequelas lhes deram nova munição, que parece validar as antigas acusações contra as suposições pouco realistas da profissão, assim como sua retificação dos mercados e desprezo pelas preocupações sociais.

Mankiw, por sua vez, achou que os estudantes que protestavam estavam “mal informados”. As ciências econômicas não têm ideologia, retorquiu. Citou John Maynard Keynes e destacou que as ciências econômicas são um método que ajuda as pessoas a pensar mais claramente e a alcançar respostas corretas, sem conclusões políticas predeterminadas.

De fato, embora possa entender-se o ceticismo de quem não esteve imerso em anos de estudos avançados de economia, os trabalhos feitos pelos alunos em um curso típico de doutorado em economia produzem uma variedade desconcertante de receitas políticas, dependendo do contexto específico. Algumas das estruturas que os economistas usam para analisar o mundo favorecem o livre mercado, enquanto outras não. Na verdade, boa parte das análises econômicas são voltadas a compreender como a intervenção dos governos pode melhorar o desempenho econômico. E motivações não econômicas e comportamentos socialmente cooperativos são cada vez mais parte dos assuntos estudados por economistas.

Como o grande economista internacional Carlos Diaz-Alejandro, já falecido, disse certa vez, “atualmente, qualquer estudante universitário esperto, se escolher suas suposições […] cuidadosamente, pode produzir um modelo consistente, recomendando praticamente quaisquer medidas políticas às quais ele fosse favorável inicialmente”. E isso foi na década de 70! Um economista aprendiz não precisa mais ser particularmente esperto para produzir conclusões de políticas não ortodoxas.

Ainda assim, os economistas precisam aguentar acusações de que não saem das raias ideológicas, porque eles mesmos são seus piores inimigos no que se refere a aplicar suas teorias no mundo real. Em vez de comunicar todo o arsenal de perspectivas que sua disciplina oferece, eles mostram confiança excessiva em soluções em particular – frequentemente aquelas que melhor se encaixam em suas próprias ideologias.

Vejamos a crise financeira mundial. A macroeconomia e as finanças não carecem das ferramentas necessárias para entender como a crise surgiu e se desenrolou. De fato, a literatura acadêmica está repleta de modelos de bolhas financeiras, informações assimétricas, distorções dos incentivos, crises autorrealizáveis e risco sistêmico. Nos anos que levaram à crise, no entanto, muitos economistas menosprezaram as lições desses modelos em favor dos que tratavam sobre a eficiência e o poder de autocorreção dos mercados, o que, na esfera das políticas, resultou em supervisão inadequada dos mercados financeiros pelos governos.

Em meu livro “O Paradoxo da Globalização”, imagino o seguinte experimento. Consiste em que um jornalista ligue a um professor de economia e pergunte se um acordo de livre comércio com o país X ou Y seria uma boa ideia. Podemos ter quase certeza de que o economista, assim como a ampla maioria das pessoas na profissão, se mostrará empolgado em seu apoio ao livre comércio.

Em outra situação, o repórter não se identifica e diz ser um estudante no seminário universitário avançado do professor sobre teoria do comércio internacional. Ele faz a mesma pergunta: O livre comércio é bom? Duvido que a resposta será tão rápida e sucinta. Na verdade, é provável que o professor se sinta bloqueado com a pergunta. “O que você quer dizer com “bom”?”, ele perguntará. “E “bom” para quem?”

O professor, então, entrará em uma longa e cansativa exegese, que acabará culminando em uma declaração pesadamente evasiva: “Então, se a longa lista de condições que acabei de descrever for cumprida e supondo que podemos tributar os beneficiários para compensar os que saíram perdendo, um comércio mais livre tem o potencial para melhorar o bem-estar de todos.” Se estivesse em dia inspirado, o professor poderia até acrescentar que o impacto do livre comércio no índice de crescimento da economia não seria claro e dependeria de um conjunto inteiramente diferente de requisitos.

A afirmação direta e incondicional sobre os benefícios do livre comércio agora foi transformada em uma declaração adornada com todos os tipos de “se” e “mas”. Estranhamente, o conhecimento que o professor transmite de boa vontade e com grande orgulho a seus estudantes avançados é considerado impróprio (ou perigoso) para o público em geral.

O ensino das ciências econômicas no nível universitário sofre do mesmo problema. Em nosso empenho para mostrar as joias da coroa da profissão de forma imaculada – a eficiência do mercado, a mão invisível, a vantagem comparativa – nós pulamos as complicações e nuances do mundo real, tão conhecidas como são na disciplina. É como se os cursos de introdução à física presumissem um mundo sem gravidade, porque assim tudo ficaria muito mais simples.

Aplicadas apropriadamente, com uma dose saudável de senso comum, as ciências econômicas nos teriam preparado para a crise financeira e nos indicado a direção certa para consertar o que a causou. Mas a ciência econômica que precisamos é a do tipo da “sala de seminário” e não a do tipo “geral”. Precisamos das ciências econômicas que reconheçam suas limitações e saibam que a mensagem apropriada depende do contexto.

Negligenciar a diversidade de orientações intelectuais dentro de sua disciplina não torna os economistas melhores analistas do mundo real. Nem os torna mais populares. (Tradução de Sabino Ahumada)

Dani Rodrik é professor de Economia Política na Harvard University e autor de “The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy” (o paradoxo da globalização: democracia e o futuro da economia mundial, em inglês).

Climate summit was a pathetic exercise in deceit (Globe and Mail)

12/12/2011UncategorizedClima, Enquadramento, Incerteza, IPCC, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Política, Políticas públicas, Previsãorenzotaddei

Thomas Homer-Dixon
Last updated Monday, Dec. 12, 2011 10:01AM EST

It was an “emperor-has-no-clothes” moment. The 17-year-old youth delegate rose before the assembled participants at the Durban climate conference and looked them straight in the eye.

“I speak for more than half the world’s population,” declared Anjali Appadurai of Maine’s College of the Atlantic. “We are the silent majority. You’ve given us a seat in this hall, but our interests are not at the table. What does it take to get a stake in this game? Lobbyists? Corporate influence? Money?”

“You have been negotiating all of my life. In that time, you’ve failed to meet pledges, you’ve missed targets, and you’ve broken promises.”

Ms. Appadurai nailed it. There’s really only one label for the pathetic exercise we’ve just witnessed in South Africa: deceit. The whole climate-change negotiation process and the larger political discourse surrounding this horrible problem is a drawn-out and elaborate exercise in lying – to each other, to ourselves, and especially to our children. And the lies are starting to corrupt our civilization from inside out.

The climate negotiators lie to each other and the world when they claim the world can still limit the planet’s warming to two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average, the point at which many experts believe the risks from climate change rise sharply.

It’s a lie because we’ve already experienced 0.8 degrees warming, and we’ve got at least another 0.6 degrees on the way due to carbon already in the atmosphere. Given that global carbon dioxide emissions of about 35 billion tons each year are now growing at an average of 3 per cent a year – which means they’re doubling every 23 years – it’s virtually certain we’re going to use up the remaining 0.6 degrees of leeway. In fact, the emerging consensus among climate experts is that we’ll be lucky to limit warming to 4 degrees.

India, China, and Brazil lie to their own citizens when they claim that by blocking a climate deal they’re protecting the opportunity for their economies to develop. “Am I to write a blank cheque and sign away the livelihoods and sustainability of 1.2-billion Indians?” asked India’s environment minister, Jayanthi Natarajan.

But this choice is patently false, as senior officials of these countries surely know. It’s not a choice between a climate-change deal and economic development; it’s really a choice of both or neither. If we don’t reduce carbon emissions, the impacts of climate change will eventually devastate the economies of poor countries. Repeated failures of monsoons in India and China or the desiccation of the Amazon basin in Brazil will drive a stake through these countries’ economies. Dealing with climate change is a prerequisite for prosperity this century – for all people on this planet.

The Canadian federal government lies to Canadians when it says we can still meet the government’s stated target of a 17 per cent reduction of emissions below the country’s 2005 level by 2020. Given the projected growth in oil sands output and the Conservatives’ neglect of the climate change file, nobody in the know seriously believes such a target can be achieved.

And we lie to ourselves when we tell ourselves that fixing climate change is someone else’s responsibility, or that the science is too uncertain to justify action, or that we’ll find a technology to solve the problem when it gets serious enough, or that it simply costs too much to do anything.

But most of all we lie to our kids. We tell them we’ve got the climate problem under control, while we’ve actually lost control of it completely. Worse, we tell them that we’re protecting their options for the future, while we’re actually closing down those options to protect powerful political and economic vested interests in the present.

It took a 17-year-old to tell the truth. The rest of us, supposedly adults, should be ashamed.

Thomas Homer-Dixon is the director of the Waterloo Institute for Complexity and Innovation and is the CIGI Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo, Ont.

Avanço diplomático, atraso climático (O Globo)

12/12/2011UncategorizedClima, Incerteza, IPCC, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Política, Políticas públicas, Previsãorenzotaddei

JC e-mail 4403, de 12 de Dezembro de 2011.

A adesão de EUA, China e Índia é marco da COP-17. Mas cortes de CO2 ficam na promessa.

Quase dois dias depois do previsto, a reunião das Nações Unidas sobre mudanças climáticas de Durban, na África do Sul, terminou na madrugada de ontem (11) sem que nenhum novo acordo com valor de lei fosse firmado. Nas 36 horas de prorrogação da cúpula, representantes de 194 países concordaram em estender o Protocolo de Kioto até 2017 e a dar início a negociações para a elaboração de um novo tratado global que só entraria em vigor em 2020. Para analistas, o resultado é uma vitória da diplomacia – uma vez que, pela primeira vez, EUA, China e Índia aceitaram negociar metas compulsórias -, mas um fracasso do ponto de vista climático. A Plataforma de Durban é um plano de ação para negociações futuras, mas representa um atraso concreto nos cortes de gases do efeito estufa.

Cientistas são praticamente unânimes em afirmar que para que o aumento da temperatura da Terra se mantenha no patamar dos 2° Celsius até o fim do século – acima da qual considera-se que haveria mudanças climáticas perigosas – um novo acordo global com metas obrigatórias de cortes de emissões já teria que entrar em vigor até o fim do ano que vem, quando o Protocolo de Kioto expiraria. Quase dez anos de espera para se ter metas compulsórias – “a década perdida”, como já a apelidaram ambientalistas – pode levar o aumento da temperatura planetária para a casa dos 3° Celsius a 4° Celsius, com consequências climáticas dramáticas.

A prorrogação do Protocolo de Kioto até 2017, por sua vez, é apenas simbólica. Com a saída de Rússia, Japão e Canadá do acordo (que nunca teve a adesão dos EUA, nem obrigações dos países em desenvolvimento), o protocolo, atualmente, cobre apenas 15% das emissões do planeta. Como, na melhor das hipóteses, o novo acordo só será implementado em 2020, tampouco se sabe que tratado estará em vigor entre 2017 e 2020.

Negociações formais começam em 2012 – Ainda assim, os participantes da reunião consideraram o acordo uma grande vitória da diplomacia. De fato, foi a primeira vez que Estados Unidos, China e Índia (os maiores emissores de CO2) concordaram em negociar a elaboração de um documento com metas compulsórias de corte de emissões – as negociações começariam já no ano que vem e se estenderiam até 2015. O Brasil, que está entre os cinco maiores emissores por conta do desmatamento, já havia concordado com o plano de intenções e teve papel crucial nas negociações. Se tudo der certo, será a primeira vez que o mundo terá um acordo global, com valor legal e o envolvimento de todos os países.

Para a ministra do Meio Ambiente, Izabella Teixeira, foi um desfecho “histórico”. A presidente Dilma Rousseff, informada do resultado pela ministra, se disse satisfeita com o resultado do encontro e elogiou a participação do Brasil.

“O documento é extraordinário. Ele lança um futuro de cooperação internacional, com condições para que se venha a ter no mesmo instrumento jurídico todos os países, abrindo uma nova era na luta contra a mudança do clima”, resumiu o embaixador Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, negociador-chefe da delegação brasileira.

Especialista da Coppe/UFRJ e integrante do Painel Intergovernamental de Mudanças Climáticas (IPCC) da ONU, Suzana Kahn Ribeiro, tem uma visão diferente. “Se o objetivo dos negociadores era ter algum tipo de acordo, não deixar um vácuo, ok, então eu posso considerar que o encontro foi vitorioso. Agora, se a meta era ter uma solução para o aquecimento global, então a conferência foi um fracasso total. Temos um instrumento legal (Kioto) que não tem valor prático nenhum e um plano de intenções para 2020 puramente declaratório”, afirmou.

Assessor da prefeitura para a Rio+20, o economista Sérgio Besserman concorda com a colega. “Esta é uma negociação diplomática, como tantas outras, mas a diferença, neste caso, é que não temos controle sobre a agenda, que é ditada externamente, pelo clima. Quando o debate é sobre comércio, por exemplo, se atrasar, atrasou. Mas com o clima não é assim, ele tem seu próprio ritmo. É claro que é preferível que se tenha um plano de intenções, que a toalha não tenha sido jogada, mas estamos nos atrasando consideravelmente”, declarou.

Para Besserman, “é assustadora a incapacidade da governança mundial de dar uma resposta ao conhecimento científico que já se tem sobre o que vem pela frente”. “Vale lembrar que um aumento de 3° Celsius é 50% acima do que se considera o limite do perigo”, avaliou.

Duas das principais organizações ambientais do mundo, WWF e Greenpeace condenaram o resultado da conferência. “O mundo merece um pacto melhor que o débil compromisso de Durban”, afirmou Regine Günther, do WWF Alemanha, lembrando que o acordo não impedirá que a temperatura suba acima dos 2° Celsius.

Para o Greenpeace, “o compromisso não conduz a um tratado vinculante mundial para a proteção do clima, mas a um acordo vago”, lembrando que não há sequer sanções para quem não cumprir o plano de intenções.

Para o cientista político e professor de Relações Internacionais da Universidade de Brasília, Eduardo Viola, o resultado da conferência é “desastroso” do ponto de vista do clima. “Tudo foi protelado para 2020, uma vez que essa prorrogação de Kioto é irrelevante, é a prorrogação do nada”, resumiu. “O resultado não é histórico, como estão dizendo os que estavam envolvidos nas negociações. Ele lamenta a decisão de adiar as medidas até 2020, uma ideia de que se está fazendo algo pelo clima quando a ciência aponta que as medidas de redução das emissões já deveriam vigorar em 2013.”

Ainda assim, o especialista garante estar otimista. “A Humanidade aprende pela dor”, afirma, lembrando que as mudanças climáticas ainda são uma realidade distante para boa parte da população. “Ela aprende com mais dor do que precisaria e em muito mais tempo do que seria necessário, mas não está condenada ao suicídio.”

Os principais pontos acertados na COP-17
O que aconteceu em Durban? 194 países se reuniram na 17ª rodada de negociações da Convenção do Clima da ONU, cuja meta é deter o aquecimento global ao limitar as emissões de gases do efeito estufa. A conferência durou dois dias além do previsto, na mais longa reunião ambiental realizada.

O que foi obtido? Após duríssimas negociações, se chegou à “Plataforma de Durban”. No documento de duas páginas, pela primeira vez, todos os países prometem cortar emissões. Um plano guiará os países em negociações até 2015 para que cheguem a um acordo legal de cortes. Porém, ele só começará a vigorar em 2020.

Foi um avanço ou um retrocesso? Depende do ângulo que se olhe. Um sucesso em termos de se manter as negociações vivas, salvando o processo da ONU, após este quase ter colapsado em Copenhague e Cancún. A União Europeia chama seu plano de ação (a Plataforma de Durban) de “avanço histórico”. Para a UE, essa é a primeira vez que EUA, China e Índia se comprometem a assinar um tratado de legal para cortar emissões. Porém, é um atraso do ponto de vista de muitos países em desenvolvimento, de grupos ambientalistas e de cientistas. Eles argumentam que a linguagem usada precisa ser mais forte para forçar os países a agir e que deveria haver datas concretas de cortes.

E o Protocolo de Kioto? Ele será estendido até 2017, com metas de redução para a UE e poucos outros países desenvolvidos. Japão e Rússia já tinham anunciado que deixariam Kioto. Um novo acordo deve ser negociado para cobrir o período até 2020. Porém, Índia, China e EUA continuam de fora. Os dois primeiros porque não têm obrigação legal e os EUA por não serem signatários. Nesse período de intervalo países como o Brasil, que têm metas voluntárias, continuarão a fazer cortes de emissões.

O dinheiro prometido em 2010 para ajudar os países pobres? O Fundo Verde criado em Cancún deverá despender US$60 bilhões por ano a partir de 2020. Porém, os detalhes de como isso será feito são muito vagos. Não está definido de onde virá o dinheiro. Uma das possibilidades são taxas sobre a aviação.

E o desmatamento? O REDD, o plano para pagar países pobres a não cortar suas árvores, avançou pouco. Mais uma vez, não ficou definido de onde virá o dinheiro. Há temor de que os recursos sejam desviados em corrupção. O REDD deverá continuar na mesa de negociação.

O que o acontecerá agora? Rodadas sobre clima estão previstas para março, em Londres, em Bonn (Alemanha), e finalmente no Qatar, na COP-18, em dezembro de 2012. Embora a Rio+20 não tenha foco no clima, especialistas acreditam que ela será fundamental nesse sentido. Em 2012 começam as negociações para se chegar a um acordo em 2015. Isso incluirá as metas por países, que deverão ser diferenciadas. Espera-se que países sejam pressionados pela sociedade a assumir metas mais ousadas.

O papel da confiança na decisão social (FAPESP)

11/12/2011Uncategorizedciência, Cognição, Economia, Incerteza, Justiça, Memória, Previsão, Psicologiarenzotaddei

08/12/2011

Por Mônica Pileggi

Estudo realizado no Mackenzie e publicado no The Journal of Neuroscience indica que cérebro não percebe injustiça de amigos em situações de decisão econômica (Wikimedia)

Agência FAPESP – Durante situações de decisão econômica, a amizade é uma das variáveis que modulam nosso cérebro, tornando o ser humano incapaz de se sentir injustiçado. Essa é uma das conclusões de uma pesquisa desenvolvida no Laboratório de Neurociência Cognitiva e Social da Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie (UPM) e publicada no The Journal of Neuroscience.

O trabalho, liderado pelo professor Paulo Sérgio Boggio, coordenador de pesquisa do Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde da UPM, foi realizado durante o mestrado “Estudo preliminar sobre potenciais cognitivos em tarefa de tomada de decisão social”, da psicóloga Camila Campanhã, que atualmente faz o doutorado na UPM, ambos com bolsas da FAPESP.

Segundo Campanhã, o estudo teve como objetivo estudar o papel da confiança na tomada de decisão social e suas bases neurobiológicas. Para isso, ela se baseou na teoria dos jogos, ramo da matemática aplicada que estuda situações estratégicas nas quais jogadores escolhem diferentes ações na tentativa de melhorar seu retorno.

Inicialmente desenvolvida como ferramenta para compreender comportamento econômico e depois usada até mesmo para definir estratégias nucleares, a teoria dos jogos é hoje aplicada em diversos campos acadêmicos. Tornou-se um ramo proeminente da matemática especialmente após a publicação, em 1944, de The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior de John von Neumann e Oskar Morgenstern.

Campanhã – cujo estudo foi realizado em colaboração com os pesquisadores Ludovico Minati, do Istituto Neurologico “Carlo Besta” (Itália), e Felipe Fregni, da Universidade Harvard (Estados Unidos) – conta que para a realização do experimento foi utilizado o Ultimatum Game, jogo utilizado na neuroeconomia e por estudiosos do comportamento social.

Composto por participantes da faixa etária de 18 a 25 anos, o jogo foi dividido em dois blocos. No primeiro, o computador enviou propostas econômicas justas e injustas de amigos (que se encontravam em ambientes diferentes). No segundo, as propostas foram feitas por integrantes do laboratório, desconhecidos dos participantes.

Os valores das propostas foram classificadas como justas (50:50), mais ou menos justas (70:30) e muito injustas (80:20 e 90:10). “Os participantes receberam a mesma quantidade de propostas justas e injustas, tanto do amigo como do desconhecido, enviadas pelo computador. Registramos toda a atividade eletroencefalográfica desses participantes durante o experimento”, disse Campanhã à Agência FAPESP.

Nesse tipo de experimento, caso a pessoa aceite a proposta, ambos recebem o valor combinado. Se ela recusar, os dois não recebem nada. “Do ponto de vista comportamental, observamos que as pessoas rejeitaram muito mais as propostas injustas do desconhecido do que as oferecidas pelo amigo – nas quais o amigo sairia ganhando mais. Além disso, essas pessoas pontuaram os amigos como mais justos do que os desconhecidos”, destacou.

O estudo apontou uma inversão positiva na atividade neuroelétrica para as propostas de amigos. “A expectativa era que os dados seriam negativos conforme se recebessem propostas injustas do amigo. No entanto, os participantes não perceberam essa injustiça”, disse Campanhã.

Segundo ela, a inversão de polaridade positiva está relacionada à satisfação de receber algo bom e justo, cuja recompensa está acima do esperado. Nesse caso, a dopamina é liberada. No sinal negativo há quebra de expectativa e a substância é inibida, gerando raiva.

“Ao realizarmos a análise para identificar a área do cérebro ativada naquele momento, observamos que o sinal elétrico apareceu no córtex pré-frontal medial anterior. Essa é uma área relacionada à habilidade de imaginar e tentar entender o que o outro está pensando e sentindo”, disse.

“Não significa que as pessoas não processam a injustiça, mas esse processo é diferente quando se confia em alguém. É como se não precisasse tentar entender o que se passa com a outra pessoa ou o que ela está sentindo”, disse.

O artigo Responding to Unfair Offers Made by a Friend: Neuroelectrical Activity Changes in the Anterior Medial Prefrontal Cortex (doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1253-11.2011), de Camila Campanhã e outros, pode ser lido por assinantes da The Journal of Neuroscience emwww.jneurosci.org/content/31/43/15569.full.pdf+html?sid=94d0a3e8-79b9-47a8-89d8-24dcf41750e7.

Human brains unlikely to evolve into a ‘supermind’ as price to pay would be too high (University of Warwick)

11/12/2011Uncategorizedciência, Cognição, Incerteza, neurociências, Previsão, Psicologia, Saúde, Saúde mentalrenzotaddei

University of Warwick

Human minds have hit an evolutionary “sweet spot” and – unlike computers – cannot continually get smarter without trade-offs elsewhere, according to research by the University of Warwick.

Researchers asked the question why we are not more intelligent than we are given the adaptive evolutionary process. Their conclusions show that you can have too much of a good thing when it comes to mental performance.

The evidence suggests that for every gain in cognitive functions, for example better memory, increased attention or improved intelligence, there is a price to pay elsewhere – meaning a highly-evolved “supermind” is the stuff of science fiction.

University of Warwick psychology researcher Thomas Hills and Ralph Hertwig of the University of Basel looked at a range of studies, including research into the use of drugs like Ritalan which help with attention, studies of people with autism as well as a study of the Ashkenazi Jewish population.

For instance, among individuals with enhanced cognitive abilities- such as savants, people with photographic memories, and even genetically segregated populations of individuals with above average IQ, these individuals often suffer from related disorders, such as autism, debilitating synaesthesia and neural disorders linked with enhanced brain growth.

Similarly, drugs like Ritalan only help people with lower attention spans whereas people who don’t have trouble focusing can actually perform worse when they take attention-enhancing drugs.

Dr Hills said: “These kinds of studies suggest there is an upper limit to how much people can or should improve their mental functions like attention, memory or intelligence.

“Take a complex task like driving, where the mind needs to be dynamically focused, attending to the right things such as the road ahead and other road users – which are changing all the time.

“If you enhance your ability to focus too much, and end up over-focusing on specific details, like the driver trying to hide in your blind spot, then you may fail to see another driver suddenly veering into your lane from the other direction.

“Or if you drink coffee to make yourself more alert, the trade-off is that it is likely to increase your anxiety levels and lose your fine motor control. There are always trade-offs.

“In other words, there is a ‘sweet spot’ in terms of enhancing our mental abilities – if you go beyond that spot – just like in the fairy-tales – you have to pay the price.”

The research, entitled ‘Why Aren’t We Smarter Already: Evolutionary Trade-Offs and Cognitive Enhancements,’ is published in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

O experimento na era da sua irreprodutibilidade técnica (Revista Piauí)

10/12/2011Uncategorizedciência, Incertezarenzotaddei

JC e-mail 4402, de 09 de Dezembro de 2011.

O desconforto ronda algumas áreas da ciência. Embora a possibilidade de replicação dos resultados por grupos independentes seja um dos pilares da ciência moderna, estudos de um número cada vez maior de campos se caracterizam pela impossibilidade ou inviabilidade de reprodução.

O impasse atinge tanto disciplinas relativamente novas e dependentes de computadores – como a genômica e a proteômica – quanto áreas consolidadas há mais tempo, como a biologia de campo. Na semana passada, a revista Science dedicou à questão uma série de cinco artigos que discutem o problema e propõem possíveis soluções.

Os campos que dependem de ferramentas computacionais para a coleta e análise de dados estão entre os que enfrentam de forma mais dramática os desafios da replicação de dados, por um motivo simples: nem todos os laboratórios dispõem dos equipamentos necessários para refazer esses experimentos. “Seria necessário um volume extraordinário de recursos para replicar de forma independente o Sloan Digital Sky Survey”, exemplifica o bioestatístico Roger Peng num dos artigos da série, referindo-se a um projeto ambicioso de mapeamento do céu que já obteve imagens tridimensionais de quase um milhão de galáxias.

O problema se repete em campos emergentes da biologia molecular, como genômica, proteômica, metabolômica e outras disciplinas com o mesmo sufixo, nas quais os pesquisadores lidam com uma grande quantidade de dados que só podem ser analisados com ferramentas computacionais poderosas. A dificuldade para reprodução desses estudos pode levar a prejuízos importantes, como mostrou o exemplo citado por John Ioannidis e Muin Khoury. Eles evocaram o caso de um estudo segundo o qual assinaturas gênicas específicas poderiam ser usadas para prever a eficácia da quimioterapia contra alguns tipos de câncer. As conclusões do estudo motivaram a realização de testes clínicos dos marcadores em questão, mas os ensaios não foram adiante depois que se constatou que era impossível replicar os resultados do estudo.

Mas não é apenas o acesso à tecnologia que limita a possibilidade de reprodução dos estudos. Mesmo as pesquisas com animais de laboratório podem apresentar dificuldades sérias de reprodução. Num dos artigos da Science, dois especialistas no estudo da cognição de primatas explicam que, nesse campo de estudo, as conclusões dos experimentos com animais de laboratório dificilmente podem ser extrapoladas para animais selvagens ou mesmo de outros laboratórios. “Diferentes populações cativas podem ter tido diferentes experiências relevantes para uma tarefa cognitiva específica”, explicam.

Na maioria dos casos, a transparência é a melhor receita para facilitar a reprodutibilidade dos estudos. No caso das pesquisas que envolvem a observação do comportamento de animais selvagens, por exemplo, os cientistas podem ajudar seus pares tornando públicos os registros feitos em campo com a ajuda de câmeras de vídeo ou rastreamento por satélite. Em outro artigo da série, Michael Ryan, da Universidade do Texas em Austin, propõe que, ao submeter um estudo para publicação, os pesquisadores sejam obrigados a mandar também os dados primários colhidos na pesquisa.

Transparência é também a chave para a replicabilidade dos estudos que dependem de ferramentas computacionais. No caso das ciências -ômicas, muitos dos dados gerados já são depositados em repositórios de acesso público. Mas isso não impede a dificuldade de replicação dos resultados, como lembram John Ioannidis e Muin Khoury: “é um desafio verificar que os dados e protocolos completos foram de fato depositados, que os arquivos estão em condições de ser acessados e que os resultados são replicáveis”, ponderam.

Os dois autores acreditam que as agências de fomento à pesquisa têm um papel importante no sentido de tornar os dados acessíveis. Eles sugerem que essas agências ofereçam bônus aos pesquisadores que disponibilizarem os dados primários de seus estudos e apliquem punições aos grupos que não tornarem acessíveis as informações necessárias para a replicação do estudo.

Um papel importante cabe também aos periódicos que publicam os artigos científicos. Roger Peng sugere que essas revistas exijam dos pesquisadores que submetam, junto com os artigos que envolvam ferramentas computacionais, não só os dados usados na análise, mas também o código-fonte dos programas usados em seu tratamento. Em seu artigo para a Science, ele disse estar estimulando a transparência dos dados no periódico Biostatistics, de cujo corpo editorial ele faz parte. Sempre que os autores o permitem, a revista publica on-line o código e os dados usados em seus artigos, que recebem uma classificação indicativa da transparência dos dados.

De qualquer forma, não custa lembrar que a preocupação com a transparência e a replicabilidade não deve substituir o rigor na coleta e análise dos dados. Como ressaltou Peng “o fato de uma análise ser reprodutível não garante a qualidade, correção ou validade dos resultados publicados”.
(Revista Piauí – 7/12)

CO2 may not warm the planet as much as thought (New Scientist)

06/12/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Previsãorenzotaddei

19:00 24 November 2011 by Michael Marshall

The climate may be less sensitive to carbon dioxide than we thought – and temperature rises this century could be smaller than expected. That’s the surprise result of a new analysis of the last ice age. However, the finding comes from considering just one climate model, and unless it can be replicated using other models, researchers are dubious that it is genuine.

As more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, more heat is trapped and temperatures go up – but by how much? The best estimates say that if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles, temperatures will rise by 3 °C. This is the “climate sensitivity”.

But the 3 °C figure is only an estimate. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the climate sensitivity could be anywhere between 2 and 4.5 °C. That means the temperature rise from a given release of carbon dioxide is still uncertain.

There have been several attempts to pin down the sensitivity. The latest comes from Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University, Corvallis, and colleagues, who took a closer look at the Last Glacial Maximum around 20,000 years ago, when the last ice age was at its height.

Icy cold

They used previously published data to put together a detailed global map of surface temperatures. This showed that the planet was, on average, 2.2 °C cooler than today. We already know from ice cores that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at the time were much lower than they are now.

Schmittner plugged the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations that existed during the Last Glacial Maximum into a climate model and tried to recreate the global temperature patterns. He found that he had to assume a relatively small climate sensitivity of 2.4 °C if the model was to give the best fit.

If climate sensitivity really is so low, global warming this century will be at the lower end of the IPCC’s estimates. Assuming we keep burning fossil fuels heavily, the IPCC estimates that temperatures will rise about 4 °C by 2100, compared with 1980 to 1999. Schmittner’s study suggests the warming would be closer to their minimum estimate for the “heavy burning” scenario, which is 2.4 °C.

Sensitive models

Past climates can help us work out the true climate sensitivity, says Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York City. But he says the results of Schmittner’s study aren’t strong enough to change his mind about the climate sensitivity. “I don’t expect this to impact consensus estimates,” he says.

In particular, the model that Schmittner used in his analysis underestimates the cooling in Antarctica and the mid-latitudes. “The model estimate of the cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum is a clear underestimate,” Schmidt says. “A different model would give a cooler Last Glacial Maximum, and thus a larger sensitivity.”

Schmittner agrees it is too early to draw firm conclusions.Individual climate models all have their own quirks, so he wants to try the experiment with several models to find out if others repeat the result.

Even if the climate sensitivity really is as low as 2.4 °C, Schmittner says that doesn’t mean we are safe from climate change. The Last Glacial Maximum was only 2.2 °C cooler than today, yet there were huge ice sheets, plant life was different, andsea levels were 120 metres lower.

“Very small changes in temperature cause huge changes in certain regions,” Schmittner says. So even if we get a smaller temperature rise than we expected, the knock-on effects would still be severe.

Journal reference: Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513

World on track for nearly 11-degree temperature rise, energy expert says (Washington Post)

06/12/2011UncategorizedClima, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Políticas públicas, Previsãorenzotaddei

By Juliet Eilperin, Published: November 28

The chief economist for the International Energy Agency said Monday that current global energy consumption levels put the Earth on a trajectory to warm by 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100, an outcome he called “a catastrophe for all of us.”

Fatih Birol spoke as as delegates from nearly 200 countries convened the opening day of annual U.N. climate talks in Durban, South Africa.

This year has been an unprecedented one for natural disasters. By the end of June, economic losses totaled $265 billion, according to German reinsurer Munich Re. That easily exceeds the total figure for 2005, which was previously the costliest year.

International climate negotiators have pledged to keep the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels. The Earth has already warmed 0.8 degrees Celsius, or 1.4 Fahrenheit, so far, according to climate scientists.According to the IEA’s most recent analysis, heat-trapping emissions from the world’s energy infrastructure will lead to a 2-degree Celsius increase in the Earth’s temperature that, as more capacity is added to the system, will climb to 6 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100.Unless there is a shift away from some of the fossil fuel energy now used for electricity generation and transportation, Birol said, “the world is perfectly on track for a six-degree Celsius increase in temperature.“Everybody, even the schoolchildren, knows this is a catastrophe for all of us,” he said at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Birol spoke in unusually blunt terms about the climate implications of the global energy mix, implications that are disputed by many conservatives in the United States who don’t believe in the connection between human activity and climate change.

David Burwell, who directs the energy and climate program at the Carnegie Endowment, said Birol’s comments have “big implications for capital investment in energy,” though he noted that it will be oil executives and others in the private sector who will drive many of the key decisions.

“We can try to regulate, we can try to incentivize, but ultimately, they’ve got to make the decisions, they’ve got to make the investments,” he said, adding that government officials should engage with the energy industry on this topic. “Now’s the time to have the conversation about investments.”

Burwell added that while the IEA has analyzed energy use and production for years, this is the first year its officials have spoken this publicly about the need to shift gears.

“They’re definitely raising the red flag, because the numbers speak for themselves,” he said. “This is the first year they’ve started stamping their foot and saying, ‘Lookit, listen to us.’ ”

In an interview after his talk, Birol said he believes his agency’s analysis is having an impact in places such as China, which he said would outpace the European Union in per capita carbon emissions by 2015. He added that by 2035, China would outrank the industrialized world as the single biggest overall emitter of greenhouse gases in history.

“They are one of the few countries putting an emphasis on climate change,” Birol said, noting they will experiment next year with putting a price on carbon in some regions.

The U.N. talks, meanwhile, suffered a setback as Canada announced Monday that it would not agree to sign up to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 climate pact that set emissions targets for all major industrialized nations. Canada had pledged to cut its overall greenhouse gas emissions 6 percent by 2012 compared with 1990 levels; as of 2009, its carbon output was 29.8 percent above 1990 levels.

Climate summit opens amid big emitters’ stalling tactics (BBC)

06/12/2011UncategorizedClima, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Políticas públicas, Previsãorenzotaddei

28 November 2011 Last updated at10:40 GMT

By Richard BlackEnvironment correspondent, BBC News

South African minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane

South Africa’s Maite Nkoana-Mashabane called for delegates to find a “common solution” for the future

As this year’s UN climate summit opens, some of the developing world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters are bidding to delay talks on a new global agreement.

To the anger of small islands states, India and Brazil have joined rich nations in wanting to start talks on a legal deal no earlier than 2015.

The EU and climate-vulnerable blocs want to start as soon as possible, and have the deal finalised by 2015.

The UN summit, in Durban, South Africa, may make progress in a few areas.

“We are in Durban with one purpose: to find a common solution that will secure a future to generations to come,” said Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, South Africa’s minister of international relations, who is chairing the summit.

But the process of finding that common solution, in the form of an agreement that can constrain greeenhouse gas emissions enough to keep the global average temperature rise below 2C, will entail some complex and difficult politics.

Developing countries will certainly target rich governments such as Japan, Canada and Russia over their refusal to commit to new emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol, whose current targets expire at the end of next year.

They see this as a breach of previous commitments and of trust.

But some observers say small island states may begin “naming and shaming” developing countries that are also delaying progress.

They say the impasse should not delay talks on a new deal, arguing that to do so would be, in one delegate’s wording, “the politics of mutually-assured destruction”.

“They’re on the edge of a mess,” another delegate told BBC News, “and they may not be able to resolve this mess”.

“The global response to climate change simply does not have time for advancing self-serving national interests” Mark Roberts, EIA

Seismic shift

The politics of the UN climate process are undergoing something of a fundamental transformation.

Increasingly, countries are dividing into one group that wants a new global treaty as soon as possible – the EU plus lots of developing countries – and another that prefers a delay and perhaps something less rigorous than a full treaty.

The divide was evident earlier this month at the Major Economies Forum (MEF) meeting in Arlington, US – the body that includes 17 of the world’s highest-polluting nations.

There, the UK and others argued that the Durban summit should agree to begin work on a new global agreement immediately, to have it in place by 2015, and operating by 2020 at the very latest.

The US, Russia and Japan were already arguing for a longer timeframe.

But BBC News has learned that at the MEF meeting, Brazil and India took the same position.

DURBAN CLIMATE CONFERENCE

Summit will attempt to agree the roadmap for a future global deal on reducing carbon emissions

Developing countries are insisting rich nations pledge further emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol

Delegates also aim to finalise some deals struck at last year’s summit

These include speeding up the roll-out of clean technology to developing nations…

… and a system for managing the Green Climate Fund, scheduled to gather and distribute billions of dollars per year to developing countries

Progress may also be made on funding forest protection

Brazil wants the period 2012-15 to be a “reflection phase”, while India suggested it should be a “technical/scientific period”.

China, now the world’s biggest emitter, is said by sources to be more flexible, though its top priority for Durban is the Kyoto Protocol.

“The planet has no other sustainable alternative other than to ensure the continuity of the Kyoto Protocol, through a second commitment period starting in 2013,” said Jorge Arguello, leader of the Argentinian delegation, which this year chairs the powerful G77/China bloc of 131 nations.

“The adoption of a second commitment period for the reduction of greenhouse gases emissions under the Kyoto Protocol is not only a political imperative and a historical responsibility, but a legal obligation that must be faced as such.”

Although the EU does not oppose a second commitment period, other developed nations do.

And as the US left the protocol years ago, nations still signed on account only for about 15% of global emissions – which is why there is so much emphasis on a new instrument, with some legal force, covering all countries.

Cooling wish

The US, Russia, Japan and Canada have all argued for delaying negotiations on this for various domestic political reasons.

EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard

Connie Hedegaard’s EU is increasingly isolated among the industrialised world bloc

But the news that big developing countries are also lobbying for a delay is likely to lead to fireworks in Durban.

Many of the countries most at risk from climate impacts want to cut emissions fast enough to hold the global average temperature rise from pre-industrial times under 1.5C.

Scientific assessments say that for this to happen, global emissions should peak and begin to fall before 2020, adding urgency to these nations’ quest for a new and effective global agreement.

President Nasheed of the Maldives is virtually the only leader who has spoken openly of the need for major developing countries to begin cutting emissions soon.

Equating the need to develop with the right to emit greenhouse gases is, he has said, “rather silly”.

But sources in Durban indicate that delegates from other small developing countries may join him before the fortnight elapses, and demand more of the big developing nations.

China, Brazil and India are also being blamed for blocking moves to phase out the climate-warming industrial HFC gases, which small island states tabled at the Montreal Protocol meeting in Bali last week.

“The global response to climate change simply does not have time for advancing self-serving national interests,” said Mark Roberts, international policy advisor for the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA).

Funding gap

Sources say, however, that there is real prospect of agreement in Durban on rules and mechanisms for a Green Climate Fund.

This would raise and disburse sums, rising to $100bn per year by 2020, to developing nations.

The industrialised countries (and countries in transition to a market economy) which took on obligations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Their combined emissions, averaged out during the 2008-2012 period, should be 5.2% below 1990 levels.

There is no agreement on where the money should come from.

Developing countries say the public coffers of industrialised nations should be the main source, whereas western governments say the bulk must come from private sector sources.

That is unlikely to be resolved until the end of next year.

But finalising the fund’s rules in Durban would be a concrete step forward.

Tim Gore, Oxfam’s chief policy adviser, said UK Climate Minister Chris Huhne must push for “getting the money flowing through the Green Climate Fund that poor people need to fight climate change now.

“A deal to raise resources from international transport could be on the table, and Huhne must convince other ministers to strike it,” he said.

However, there is widespread scepticism about the much smaller funds – $10bn per year – that developed nations are already supposed to be contributing under the Fast Start Finance agreement made in 2009.

Developing countries say only a small fraction of what has been pledged is genuinely “new and additional”, as it is meant to be; and that little has actually materialised.

The summit may also see a row over the EU’s imminent integration of aviation into the Emission Trading Schemen, which India and some other developing nations oppose.

Science panel: Get ready for extreme weather (AP)

06/12/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, comunicação científica, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Previsão, Psicologia, Sensacionalismo, Visualidaderenzotaddei

November 18, 2011|Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer

Maarten van Aalst, leading climate specialist for the Red Cross and Red Crescent, speaks about how climate change will affect people and assets during the presentation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report at a press conference at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, in this April 11, 2007 file photo. Top international climate scientists and disaster experts meeting in Africa had a sharp message Friday Nov. 18, 2011 for the worlds political leaders: Get ready for more dangerous and unprecedented extreme weather caused by global warming. (AP Photo/Keystone, Salvatore Di Nolfi, File)

Think of the Texas drought, floods in Thailand and Russia’s devastating heat waves as coming attractions in a warming world. That’s the warning from top international climate scientists and disaster experts after meeting in Africa.

The panel said the world needs to get ready for more dangerous and “unprecedented extreme weather’’ caused by global warming. These experts fear that without preparedness, crazy weather extremes may overwhelm some locations, making some places unlivable.

The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a special report on global warming and extreme weather Friday after meeting in Kampala, Uganda. This is the first time the group of scientists has focused on the dangers of extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods, droughts and storms. Those are more dangerous than gradual increases in the world’s average temperature.

For example, the report predicts that heat waves that are now once-in-a-generation events will become hotter and happen once every five years by mid-century and every other year by the end of the century. And in some places, such as most of Latin America, Africa and a good chunk of Asia, they will likely become yearly bakings.

And the very heavy rainstorms that usually happen once every 20 years will happen far more frequently, the report said. In most areas of the U.S. and Canada, they are likely to occur three times as often by the turn of the century, if fossil fuel use continues at current levels. In Southeast Asia, where flooding has been dramatic, it is likely to happen about four times as often as now, the report predicts.

One scientist points to this year’s drought and string of 100 degree days in Texas and Oklahoma, which set an all-time record for hottest month for any U.S. state this summer.

“I think of it as a wake-up call,’’ said one of the study’s authors, David Easterling, head of global climate applications for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “The likelihood of that occurring in the future is going to be much greater.’’

The report said world leaders have to prepare better for weather extremes.

“We need to be worried,’’ said one of the study’s lead authors, Maarten van Aalst, director of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre in the Netherlands. “And our response needs to anticipate disasters and reduce risk before they happen rather than wait until after they happen and clean up afterward. … Risk has already increased dramatically.’’

New climate emails leaked ahead of talks (CBS)

06/12/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, comunicação científica, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Internet, Marketing, Mídia, Mediação tecnológica, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Política, Políticas públicas, Previsãorenzotaddei

November 22, 2011 2:15 PM

The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England. (AP)

LONDON – The British university whose leaked emails caused a global climate science controversy in 2009 says it has discovered a potentially much larger data breach.

University of East Anglia spokesman Simon Dunford said that while academics didn’t have the chance yet to examine the roughly 5,000 emails apparently dumped into the public domain Tuesday, a small sample examined by the university “appears to be genuine.”

The university said in a statement that the emails did not appear to be the result of a new hack or leak. Instead, the statement said that the emails appeared to have been stolen two years ago and held back until now “to cause maximum disruption” to the imminent U.N. climate talks next week in Durban, South Africa.

If that is confirmed, the timing and nature of the leak would follow the pattern set by the so-called “Climategate” emails, which caught prominent scientists stonewalling critics and discussing ways to keep opponents’ research out of peer-reviewed journals.

Those hostile to mainstream climate science claimed the exchanges proved that the threat of global warming was being hyped, and their publication helped destabilize the failed U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, which followed several weeks later.

Although several reviews have since vindicated the researchers’ science, some of their practices – in particular efforts to hide data from critics – have come under strong criticism.

The content of the new batch of emails couldn’t be immediately verified – The Associated Press has not yet been able to secure a copy – but climate skeptic websites carried what they said were excerpts.

Although their context couldn’t be determined, the excerpts appeared to show climate scientists talking in conspiratorial tones about ways to promote their agenda and freeze out those they disagree with. There are several mentions of “the cause” and discussions of ways to shield emails from freedom of information requests.

Penn State University Prof. Michael Mann – a prominent player in the earlier controversy whose name also appears in the latest leak – described the latest leak as “a truly pathetic episode,” blaming agents of the fossil fuel industry for “smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails.”

He said the real story in the emails was “an attempt to dig out 2-year-old turkey from Thanksgiving ’09. That’s how desperate climate change deniers have become.”

Bob Ward, with the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said in an email that he wasn’t surprised by the leak.

“The selective presentation of old email messages is clearly designed to mislead the public and politicians about the strength of the evidence for man-made climate change,” he said. “But the fact remains that there is very strong evidence that most the indisputable warming of the Earth over the past half century is due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities.”

The source of the latest leaked emails was unclear. The perpetrator of the original hack has yet to be unmasked, although British police have said their investigation is still active.

Climate researchers cleared of malpractice
An End to Climategate? Penn State Clears Michael Mann
Why climate change skeptics remain skeptical

From Shore to Forest, Projecting Effects of Climate Change (N.Y. Times)

06/12/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Marketing, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Política, Políticas públicas, Previsão, Visualidaderenzotaddei

By LESLIE KAUFMAN

While the long-term outlook for grape-growers in the Finger Lakes region is favorable, it is less than optimal for skiers and other winter sports enthusiasts in the Adirondacks. Fir and spruce trees are expected to die out in the Catskills, and New York City’s backup drinking water supply may well be contaminated as a result of seawater making its way farther up the Hudson River.

These possibilities — modeled deep into this century — are detailed in a new assessment of the impact that climate change will have in New York State. The 600-page report, published on Wednesday, was commissioned by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, a public-benefit corporation, and is a result of three years of work by scientists at state academic institutions, including Columbia and Cornell Universities and the City University of New York.

Its authors say it is the most detailed study that looks at how changes brought about by a warming Earth — from rising temperatures to more precipitation and global sea level rise — will affect the economy, the ecology and even the social fabric of the state.

Cynthia Rosenzweig, a senior research scientist at Columbia’s Earth Institute, said the report was much broader in scope than earlier efforts by New York City that tried to evaluate how best to prepare for climate change.

“New York City’s report focuses on how climate change will affect critical structures” like bridges and sewage systems, she said. “This report also looks at public health, agriculture, transportation and economics.”

The authors drew on results from global climate models and then created projections for variables like rainfall and temperatures for seven regions across the state. Then they tried to assess how those alterations would play out in specific terms. They also developed adaptation recommendations for different economic sectors.

If carbon emissions continue to increase at their current pace, for example, temperatures are expected to rise across the state by 3 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2020s and by as much as 9 degrees by the 2080s. That would have profound effects on agriculture across the state, the report found. For example, none of the varieties of apples currently grown in New York orchards would be viable. Dairy farms would be less productive as cows faced heat stress. And the state’s forests would be transformed; spruce-fir forests and alpine tundra would disappear as invasive species like kudzu, an aggressive weed, gained more ground.

If the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets melt, as the report says could happen, the sea level could rise by as much as 55 inches, which means that beach communities would frequently be inundated by flooding.

“In 2020, nearly 96,000 people in the Long Beach area alone may be at risk from sea-level rise,” the report said, referring to just one oceanfront community on the South Shore of Long Island. “By 2080, that number may rise to more than 114,500 people. The value of property at risk in the Long Beach area under this scenario ranges from about $6.4 billion in 2020 to about $7.2 billion in 2080.”

The report found that the effects of climate change would fall disproportionately on the poor and the disabled.

In coastal areas in New York City and along rivers in upstate New York, it said, there is a high amount of low-income housing that would be in the path of flooding.

Art DeGaetano, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Cornell, said that its findings need not be interpreted as totally devastating.

“It would be all bad if you wanted a static New York, with the same species of bird and the same crops,” he said, “but there will be opportunities as well. We expect, for example, that New York State will remain water-rich and we may be able to capitalize when other parts of the country are having severe drought.”

The next step, the authors said, is for them to meet with state agencies and try to work with them to carry out some of the report’s recommendations of ways to cope with climate change

One would be to get the state to routinely incorporate projections of increased sea levels and heavy downpours when building big infrastructure projects. They also suggested protecting and nursing natural barriers to sea-level rise, like coastal wetlands, and changing building codes in certain area for things like roof strength and foundation depth in areas that would be hit hardest by storms.

“If there is one thing we learned from Hurricane Irene,” Dr. Rosenzweig said referring to the tropical storm that pummeled the state this past summer, “we have a lot more we could be doing to prepare.”

Rajendra Pachauri: “A ciência foi deixada de lado na COP” (O Estado de São Paulo)

06/12/2011Uncategorizedciência, Clima, comunicação científica, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Política, Políticas públicas, Previsãorenzotaddei

JC e-mail 4398, de 05 de Dezembro de 2011.

Se ela estivesse no centro do debate sobre mudanças climáticas, ações não poderiam ser adiadas, afirma o cientista indiano Rajendra Pachauri, presidente do Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas (IPCC).

O cientista indiano Rajendra Pachauri, de 71 anos, presidente do Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas (IPCC), acompanha com frustração a 17.ª Conferência do Clima da ONU, a COP-17. O pesquisador, que concedeu entrevista ao Estado em uma pequena sala VIP no centro de convenções de Durban, avalia que a ciência e os alertas dados pelos cientistas não estão no centro das negociações climáticas.

Para ele, não é necessariamente fundamental garantir a segunda fase do Protocolo de Kyoto nessa reunião, mas é preciso que haja avanços independentemente do acordo que seja escolhido. “Gostaria que houvesse uma forma de tornar a ciência sobre clima uma parte mais central nas discussões nas negociações. Porque pelo menos assim você poderia dizer que não se pode adiar as ações por muito tempo. E tomar medidas pode ser realmente atraente, e não caro”, afirma. A reunião segue até sexta-feira.

Apesar dos alertas do IPCC e do recente relatório especial sobre eventos extremos que mostram os impactos das mudanças climáticas, o avanço nas negociações é muito lento. Como o senhor avalia essa situação?
Nas negociações que estão acontecendo aqui, nós não podemos perder de vista a ciência das mudanças climáticas. Você mencionou corretamente que recentemente publicamos um relatório especial sobre eventos extremos e desastres e como podemos avançar na adaptação (preparação para esses eventos). Eu gostaria de ver uma discussão muito mais focada nessas questões, e o que a comunidade global pode fazer para lidar com esses impactos.

O senhor acha importante focar mais em adaptação?
Acho que precisamos lidar com os dois, adaptação e mitigação (cortes de emissões de gases-estufa). Porque nós não teremos capacidade de nos adaptar a todos os impactos. Podemos nos adaptar a algumas situações, mas, depois de um certo tempo, fica muito difícil e caro fazer isso. Então, precisamos olhar para a mitigação também. Neste ano apresentamos um relatório sobre energias renováveis que claramente mostra que é possível usar muito mais energias renováveis e, com mais pesquisas em seu desenvolvimento, os custos podem cair. O que estou dizendo é que eu gostaria que houvesse uma forma de tornar a ciência sobre clima uma parte mais central nas discussões nas negociações. Porque pelo menos assim você poderia dizer que não se pode adiar as ações por muito tempo. E que tomar medidas pode ser realmente atraente, e não caro.

A ciência então não está no centro da discussão hoje?
Não parece estar. Não estou envolvido diretamente na negociação, mas a acompanho e não vejo a ciência no centro do debate.

As pessoas costumam dizer que os cientistas do IPCC eram radicais e pessimistas. Mas em dois anos novos estudos podem mostrar que a situação é ainda mais perigosa do que o previsto?
Não sei, ainda estamos trabalhando nesse relatório. No relatório especial sobre eventos extremos e desastres, nós apontamos as áreas em que ainda não temos muitas evidências e também as em que as evidências claramente mostram que ondas de calor aumentarão, assim como os eventos de precipitações extremas e a elevação do nível do mar – e isso é uma ameaça a áreas costeiras. Trouxemos todas as informações com um grande cuidado, de forma robusta. Ninguém pode dizer que alguém dentro do IPCC é radical.

Ao contrário, eu ia perguntar se os cientistas não estavam sendo cautelosos demais no relatório de 2007.
Temos muito mais evidências hoje, muito mais pesquisas publicadas sobre mudanças climáticas. E o IPCC funciona com a avaliação de pesquisas publicadas (o IPCC não faz as próprias pesquisas). E, agora, temos muito mais estudos do que nos anos anteriores ao quarto relatório do IPCC, de 2007. Certamente, estamos num nível muito melhor agora. É claro que em algumas partes do mundo temos grandes lacunas, não temos estudos em todos os locais e isso ocorre principalmente nos países mais vulneráveis.

A discussão em Durban tem focado muito no Protocolo de Kyoto. Em sua opinião, é importante ter um segundo período de compromisso de Kyoto? Ou podemos fazer outro tipo de acordo?
É muito difícil dizer, há uma diversidade enorme de opções que podem ser aceitas. Mas eu gostaria de ver um avanço, qualquer que seja a direção tomada, com Kyoto ou outra coisa. E, de novo, se houvesse um foco na ciência, talvez as pessoas veriam que há urgência em agir e as decisões seriam tomadas mais rapidamente.

O senhor acredita que países emergentes como China, Índia e Brasil devem fazer mais, já que são grandes emissores?
Não poderia dizer isso, mas de vou lembrar que as responsabilidades de acordo com a convenção do clima são comuns, mas diferenciadas (os países industrializados, maiores emissores históricos, têm as maiores responsabilidades). E é por isso que essas negociações acontecem. Se olharmos nos últimos 20 anos desde que a convenção do clima foi criada, o mundo não fez o suficiente. E as emissões ainda estão aumentando. Então, não tenho muita certeza se o que tivemos até agora foi realmente muito efetivo. E talvez o que precisamos agora é de algo mais efetivo, que vá de encontro ao objetivo de evitar interferência antropocêntrica (humana) no sistema climático. Que é o objetivo principal da Convenção do Clima da ONU.

Em 2009, pouco antes da COP-15, tivemos o episódio que ficou conhecido como Climategate, quando e-mails de cientistas foram expostos. O senhor tem medo de hackers ou grampos telefônicos?
Tudo isso é crime, e uma pessoa não pode ficar com medo e deixar de fazer o que se espera dela. Temos de continuar nosso trabalho e é isso que estamos tentando fazer.

Mas o senhor recebe ameaças?
Sim, mas eu prefiro não falar sobre elas.

O que o IPCC aprendeu com o erro do Himalaia?
Em primeiro lugar, deixe-me colocar esse erro em perspectiva. Tínhamos 3 mil páginas de relatório e milhares de dados. E uma única informação em que cometemos o erro, de que as geleiras do Himalaia desapareceriam em 2035, não estava no sumário técnico, no sumário para os tomadores de decisão nem no relatório síntese. Estava apenas no relatório principal, que é essencialmente científico, não é para os tomadores de decisão. Então, de nenhuma maneira estávamos tentando chamar a atenção dos tomadores de decisão para esse dado errado. Francamente, não sabíamos do erro. Agora temos procedimentos mais fortes, mais passos a seguir, um protocolo de correção. Tudo isso vai nos ajudar a lidar com uma situação como essa muito melhor no futuro.

O senhor acha que o trabalho se tornando mais burocrático, com mais revisões e correções, pode afastar os cientistas do IPCC?
Nossa instituição tem uma responsabilidade com a sociedade. Então, se nós não temos um sistema em que um erro possa ser corrigido, então claramente há um déficit. É nossa responsabilidade buscar um sistema em que erros, uma vez que apareçam, possam ser investigados e depois corrigidos. E não tínhamos isso no passado.

E os cientistas continuam querendo se ligar ao IPCC, é importante para suas carreiras?
Absolutamente. Não sei a respeito das carreiras, mas com certeza pelo senso de orgulho profissional. Para o 5.º Relatório do IPCC tivemos um número recorde de nomeações. Cerca de 3 mil nomeações, das quais elegemos 831. O número foi pelo menos 50% maior do que tivemos no 4.º relatório. E isso mostra que a comunidade científica se entusiasma em trabalhar com o IPCC.

Acha que a crise econômica está impactando as negociações e as ações dos governos?
Eu acho que sim. Mas é por isso que eu acho que a primazia da ciência deve ser mantida. Vamos encarar a questão: a crise econômica deve ser resolvida em dois, três, quatro anos, algo assim. Mas o problema das mudanças climáticas está aqui para todo o sempre. Então, não podemos nos cegar por considerações de curto prazo.

O que o senhor espera da Rio+20?
O que vai ser a reunião é difícil de prever. Mas eu espero que marque um ponto de virada em nossa forma de pensar e em nossas atitudes. Já é hora de olhar para as implicações no longo prazo do que estamos fazendo e tomar algumas decisões. Eu espero a Rio+20 marque uma mudança na forma de pensar da raça humana.

Secretária da ONU diz que ações são respostas à ciência – A secretária executiva da Convenção do Clima da ONU, Christiana Figueres, negou ao Estado que a ciência não ocupe posição central nas negociações. “Se a ciência não dissesse que temos um problema, não estaríamos aqui. A convenção existe precisamente em resposta à ciência e a convenção sempre está atenta aos seus progressos.” Segundo ela, a convenção acompanhará o 5º Relatório do IPCC, a ser publicado em 2013 e 2014.
(O Estado de São Paulo – 4/12)

Brazil Signals It Can’t Commit to Binding Emissions Target in Durban (Bloomberg)

06/12/2011UncategorizedClima, Economia, Enquadramento, Incerteza, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Política, Previsãorenzotaddei

By Alex Morales – Dec 6, 2011 9:36 AM GMT-0200

Brazil signaled it’s not prepared to sign up to a road map leading to a legally-binding carbon emissions target at United Nations talks in South Africa, a key demand the European Union is making at the meeting.

Latin America’s second biggest greenhouse gas emitter after Mexico is open to devising a timeline for a future climate change deal without prejudging what legal form the pact might take, said Brazilian envoy Luiz Alberto Figueiredo.

“We have no problem in looking at a timeline that will take us from here to there engaging in that kind of exercise,” Figueiredo said today in an interview in Durban, South Africa. “The structure of that post-2020 framework will be solved in the negotiations.”

The debate over the EU’s proposal is one of the main sticking points at the talks in Durban that conclude on Dec. 9. Developing nations led by Brazil and China want the current treaty limiting emissions, the Kyoto Protocol, to be extended beyond 2012. The EU says it won’t renew Kyoto unless all nations say when they’d take on mandatory carbon targets.

Asked if Brazil could accept a future agreement that set binding emissions targets for all nations, Figueiredo said, “It’s fine, if that’s the result of the negotiation, fine. I cannot simply say now that we will agree with that if we don’t know now what will be the conditions.”

China’s Plan

Chinese delegation chief Xie Zhenhua yesterday told reporters his country could accept a binding deal after 2020 provided five conditions were met, including a second-commitment period of Kyoto. EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said more clarifications are needed from China

Hedegaard in a post on Twitter after her meeting with China wrote, “sometimes messages are more progressive at public press conferences than in negotiation rooms.”

Brazil’s envoy also said that failure to secure a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in Durban would endanger the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, a carbon offset market that helps companies to meet their emissions targets through investing in carbon-cutting projects in the developing world.

Without emissions targets, “the CDM unfortunately loses its purpose and we’re very concerned about,” Figueiredo said.

Brazil, India, China doing more than rich nations for climate cause: UN (Hindustan Times)

06/12/2011UncategorizedClima, Incerteza, Mídia, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Política, Previsãorenzotaddei

Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, December 06, 2011

First Published: 16:47 IST(6/12/2011)
Last Updated: 17:02 IST(6/12/2011)

Pedestrians cross the second ring road as pollution reaches what the US Embassy monitoring station says are “Hazardous” levels in Beijing.

Voluntary climate mitigation action of the emerging economies such as India will lead to higher reduction in global warming causing carbon emissions as compared to emission cut pledges of the rich nations.

A United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report released on Tuesday saying that developing country’s voluntary actions will have more impact on emission reduction in business to usual scenario would help developing nations in opposing emission cuts in new climate treaty.

“Brazil will achieve the most among emerging economies. India and China will also do well,” said Achim Steiner, UNEP’s top official told HT after releasing the report. Brazil in 2009 had announced voluntary emission reduction of 38-42 % by 2020 whereas India has decided to reduce energy intensity (per unit of GDP) by 20-25 % by 2020.

When asked whether the report suggested how — rich or emerging economies — should bear the burden of emission reductions to limit rise of temperature to two degree celsius by end of the century, he said their job was to present scientific data before the climate negotiators to take a call. “It is for the political leaders to decide on action on the scientific data presented by us,” he said.

Sunita Narian, director-general of NGO Centre for Science and Environment said there is ennough data to suggest that the developing world is doing much more than its capacity to fight climate change. “Those responsible for carbon emissions, the rich world, is sheirking from their responsibility (to fight climate change),” she said.

The UNEP report also said that the emission gap to keep temperature at two degree celsius has increased by one gega tonne in a year. As per UNEP estimate, emissions should not be higher than 44 gega tonnes by 2020.

“The analysis indicates that the gap has got larger rather than smaller, standing around six gega tonne by around 2020,” the report said. It means that total global carbon emissions in 2020 would be 50 gega tonne.

Steiner said the world can still bridge the gap if it opts for low carbon growth pathways by adopting cleaner technologies but the time was running out.

“It (opting for low carbon growth) will not be an easy task,” said Maria van der Hoeven Executive Director of International Energy Association. The IEA said that the full potential of low carbon growth could be utilised only by 2035 primarily because of high cost of cleaner technologies including renewable.

Uma (in)certa antropologia

An (un)certain anthropology