Sunday, November 04, 2012

Bloomberg Business Week Discovers Global Warming!

Bloomberg Business Week, which has an elite audience, has a cover story that says it all: It's Global Warming, Stupid!

Bloomberg Business Week Editor-in-Chief Josh Tyrangiel says that the cover story may generate controversy, "but only among the stupid".

The significance is not what BW says. It's who is saying it: The heart of the big business Establishment. The sound that you hear is the gnashing of teeth at the Heartland Institute, Marshall Institute, and other denier front groups.

This may be a turning point in the struggle to save the planet.


Anonymous said...

Roger Pielke Jr's teeth are also grinding. LOL.

Anonymous said...


A category 1 hurricane during hurricane season?


Anonymous said...

A category 1 hurricane during hurricane season?

It's a good thing it wasn't a category 3 or 4 hurricane that rammed it's way up there. You'll just have to trust my experience on that.

Jim Eager said...

No sweetie, it's that it was a category 1 hurricane a thousand miles across passing over a sea surface 3C warmer than normal in an atmosphere that now holds 4% more moisture being funneled into the Jersey coast by Rossby waves of exceptional depth and persistence. Granted, that it hit during a spring tide was just luck of the draw, but that it hit during high tide was inevitable given its size.

But hey, why let reality get in the way of the denial meme of the day

J Bowers said...

"A category 1 hurricane during hurricane season?"

With a category 2 or 3 barometric pressure and the greatest kinetic energy recorded. Really.

dhogaza said...

"No sweetie, it's that it was a category 1 hurricane a thousand miles across passing over a sea surface 3C warmer than normal"

Which resisted being blown entirely apart by windshear of 30-35 knots which only dropped to 20-25 knots in the last 24-36 hours before striking the coast.

Without the windshear it would've been more compact but a cat 3 or more for sure.

Anonymous said...

Too bad Bloomberg is not one of the choices on Tuesday.

He may be a heart of the big business establishment, but there is more than one.

Bloomberg represents the financial services heart which is most likely already hedging its bets on the reality of climate change -- not the fossil fuel heart (represented by the Kochs)

And yes, I know Bloomberg endorsed Obama, but Barack "We’ve built enough pipelines to wrap around the Earth once" Obama has the backbone of a jellyfish when it comes to standing up to the fossil fuel interests.

But of course, as we all know, Obama will grow a new "bowling pair" (and sing the AC/DC tune every morning) if he gets a second term.

Of course.

And Mitt would be even worse...

Yadda, yadda, yadda

I hope you're right John (that it is a real turning point), but I am not optimistic.

Unfortunately, what we desperately need is a REAL leader -- with the courage to buck the current system and talk about climate change even when it is not the popular thing to do -- and I don't see it in either of the two major party candidates.

Jill Stein would provide it, but not enough Democrats will ever take a chance on her (because they are so afraid of Romney)


J Bowers said...

The Romney camp just blnked:

Republicans Lay The Groundwork To Blame Hurricane Sandy If Romney Loses

EliRabett said...

Wall Street and Wall Street West (Hoboken) got wiped out. Some buildings won't be useable until 2013 sometime. Bloomberg is primarily a provider of information to Wall Street. They appear to have noticed

David B. Benson said...

You mean now they'll close the barn door?

Anonymous said...

"No sweetie, it's that it was a category 1 hurricane a thousand miles across passing over a sea surface 3C warmer than normal "


So it intensified to more than a cat 1 storm when it passed anomalously warm water?

Anonymous said...

" J Bowers said...
"A category 1 hurricane during hurricane season?"

With a category 2 or 3 barometric pressure and the greatest kinetic energy recorded. Really."

You mean it was a category 1 hurricane during hurricane season?


Anonymous said...

Snow Bunny says:

The first comment, "Roger Pielke Jr's teeth are also grinding" is not exactly true.
Pielke Jr. simply sharpened his pencil and explained (yet again) in a WSJ article that hurricanes are doing more damage because there are more buildings and inflation,

Evidently he can't be bothered to look up the analyses of reinsurers like Munich Re. North American losses were twice as high in2011 as the record year of 2010. Sandy alone will top 2011, not to mention the derecho and numerous small and violent storms.

Marcel Kincaid said...

Jill Stein would provide it

So would I, but it would be just as irrational to vote for me as to vote for her.

John Mashey said...

Having interacted productively with folks from both Bloomberg Businessweek and The Economist, neither of them is Forbes or the WSJ.

Anonymous said...

Really Anonymous seems to be unable to move past the categorisation of Sandy.

Really Anonymous would, by the same process of 'thinking', class the elephant in the room as a mouse, simply because it is moving at a mousey velocity.

Does anyone see the problem with Really Anonymous's thinking?

Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

cRR Kampen said...

There is no thinking, just climate revisionism. Which is a problem.

Disagree with Eli's hopes. The only thing that might, just _might_ help is Sandy-squared every damned year.

Which is actually what the world, and we, should hope for.

Because no-one is gonna care for three million drowned when the next Sandy hits Bangladesh.


City Hall suffered the wrath of the supersized storm because Bloomberg dissed its infant cousin, the 42 ounce Slurpee.

J Bowers said...

Financial Times... joins the Economist in supporting incumbent and criticises Romney's 'fiscal alchemy'

Anonymous said...

"it would be irrational to vote for...Stein"

The very epitome of "irrationality" (indeed insanity) is voting for the same people (over and over again in some cases) but expecting different results.

Or at least so Einstein thought, but then again, what did he know about rationality?


PS I live in CT and will absolutely be voting for Stein.

EliRabett said...

The point is that attempting political change from the top is suicide. You get change from the bottom. This is done by electing the people you want starting in primaries and for offices on the local level. The Republican Party is a good example of how it works. Voting for Stein, no matter how good she is, is at this time, simply shooting yourself and no one will listen and no one will care.

Anonymous said...

Eli, perhaps you missed the part where I said I live in CT (and there is a thing called "federal funding of third parties" who receive enough votes.)

"Irrationality" is not a one size fits all sweatshirt.

But it can be a blanket.


Anonymous said...

"You get change from the bottom. This is done by electing the people you want starting in primaries..."

Unfortunately, the "We can't vote for Democrat X because then Republican Y' will win" attitude is just as pervasive in the primaries as it is in the general election (particularly when there is an incumbent President).

And, of course, those who don't toe the official party line usually aren't even on the ballot in the primaries.

Until people break out of their current mindset, little will change.


J Bowers said...

And the Romney camp just blinked again.

The 'Pre-Delegitimization' Watch: It Begins

John Mashey said...

Elections: see Wkipedia on primary elections, especially Washington and California. While this just started in CA, the top-2 blanket primary style looks promising, both in lessening the tendency to go to the extremes and sometimes providing competition in districts that always vote for one party. We've got some interesting R-R and D-D races as a result, and all if the politicians have to think about independents.

Of course all voting systems have their oddities, so we'll see how this works longer term.

Anonymous said...

"Really Anonymous seems to be unable to move past the categorisation of Sandy."

What do you expect from a clueless f...wad? It's all he can manage to stay on the script they feed him.

green investments said...

Now let's just hope the political class also finally focuses on global warming!

cynthia said...

Neil Young reminds us that there's a creative destructive side to hurricanes:

Hank Roberts said...

> controversy, but only
> among the stupid

You should read this, seriously:

He, after too much prefatory material, describes his method:

"... I signed on to the email lists of several influential magazines on the right, among them Townhall, which operates under the auspices of evangelical Stuart Epperson’s Salem Communications; Newsmax, the organ more responsible than any other for drumming up the hysteria that culminated in the impeachment of Bill Clinton; and Human Events, one of Ronald Reagan’s favorite publications. The exercise turned out to be far more revealing than I expected. Via the battery of promotional appeals that overran my email inbox, I mainlined a right-wing id that was invisible to readers who encounter conservative opinion at face value.

Subscriber lists to ideological organs are pure gold to the third-party interests who rent them as catchments for potential customers....."

And his observations:

"... the layout of on the day it featured an article headlined “Ideas Will Drive Conservatives’ Revival.” Two inches beneath that bold pronouncement, a box headed “Health News” included the headlines “Reverse Crippling Arthritis in 2 Days,” “Clear Clogged Arteries Safely & Easily—without drugs, without surgery, and without a radical diet,” and “High Blood Pressure Cured in 3 Minutes . . . Drop Measurement 60 Points.” .... the reflex of lying that’s now sutured into the modern conservative movement’s DNA—and ... why conservative leaders treat their constituents like suckers."

He answers that question:

Because they're willing to be.

He's making the observation that _advertisers_ tell us more about the audience for the conservative target audience than we learn from anything said by their editors, or their writers, or their bloggers.

The advertisers know who they're buying: the credulous.

The advertisers tell us the readers of these publications will buy almost anything presented with claims that are reassuring in the way only bogus promises and lies can be bogus -- unqualified.

Someone elsewhere pointed out why the Nigerian bank email scammers go on sending out their bazillions of crap emails: it's because the very incredible bogosity serves as a sensitive filter.

Only those who respond to this crap will be suckered by it.

Seriously. The guy's wordy, he goes on and on -- but it's worth reading -- and thinking about and checking out.

The Long Con: Mail-order conservatism
Rick Perlstein
from The Baffler No. 21

What got me willing to even imagine this was hearing George Lakoff talk recently. He's another wordy writer I had trouble reading, but behind a podium he merely mentions a digression and says "we can talk about that later" (and never does) instead of devoting half a chapter to every possibly interesting digression, as seems to happen in his older books (his newest book is very thin, perhaps I'll try that).

His point -- one I'd never understood -- is that the right studies marketing and does what gets people to buy; the left, he said, studies theory and policy, and does what people _should_ respond to (in theory).

And I went d'oh -- I studied biology. I've never understood most liberals, the "environmentalists" who never read any ecology ....
He nodded and said, well, there you go.

cynthia said...

Eli, I don’t believe that it is clear which is worse, Romney or Obama. What is clear, however, is that the USA is on the flight trajectory of a brick, and that there is no reason to believe that either of the two legacy party candidates has any intention of addressing the root causes of the situation. The main difference between the two candidates and their parties is whether or not we hit the turf at 450 or 500 miles an hour. As many on the TRUE Left have written elsewhere, one of the more plausible avenues by which the situation might be improved is if progressive desertion of the Democratic presidential candidate is the obvious cause of his loss of the election. If this were to happen, and if the Democrats retain control of the Senate, there’s a chance, but only a chance, that a few of them might grow the gonads needed to return the party to its mid–20th century roots.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Cynthia, An 11% difference in velocity could make the difference in whether we hit the wall or not should our progeny regain control and apply the brakes.

It has always been my philosophy when presented with a choice of actions to take that action which maximizes the chances of success for those who come after us on the off chance that they will be smarter than we are.

dhogaza said...

"Eli, I don’t believe that it is clear which is worse, Romney or Obama."

If you can't see clearly, you should have those cataracts taken care of ...

EliRabett said...

Besides which the mid twentieth century roots of the Democratic party included James Eastland, Harry Byrd and Strom Thurmond. Eli was there

Jim Eager said...

Hank, Perlstein's observation that conservatives take to lying as a duck takes to water should come as no surprise to anyone with a functioning brain. You might want to look up Leo Strauss and the "noble lie."

cynthia said...

DilBert -- Unfortunately, without realizing it, no matter who you vote for, you are throwing away your vote, for to vote in this duplicitous two-party system is nothing more than an exercise in futility. The proof of that is the last 30 or so years, if you look at the actual policies of each preceding President, you will find that the President that wins, no matter if it is Republican or Democrat, maintains or expands on the polices of the previous President. In fact, in looking at the policy differences you will find that 98%, if not more, of the previous President is maintained by the newly elected President coming into office, no matter which Party comes to power. In other words, there is not enough difference between the Parties or their polices to be meaningful. But thanks to the wonders of marketing, the American Voter actually thinks he or she is being given a choice, that his or her vote actually counts for something, when in fact, it is only an exercise to keep the American public placated through an elaborate political dog and pony show.

It is the ultimate method of control, to allow a people to think they can make a difference, to give them hope that if only we can get this man into office things will change, the country will finally be put on the right path.How many years have we heard this very thing? Yes, this is the most important election ever, strangely, every election in the past 30 years have been the most important election ever and it is so vital that you cast your vote so we make sure that the right man gets elected.

The stage play is presented to the American People every four years, the actors change, but the script remains the same. Sure there are stage props that are changed out, each candidate has some cosmetic policies that give their supporters the idea that their respective candidate is indeed THE ONE, but as far as substance, as far as real, substantive change taking place due to the election of a Republican or Democrat, there is no substantive differences between them. Your vote has become nothing more than a convenient means of political control, meaningless in terms of results due to the fact that both Parties have rigged the system to such a degree that they dare not allow other voices or opinions to creep into their ideological debate.

This country finds itself in its current dismal state due to the fact that the People of this country, unaware of the enormous power structure behind the two Parties, continue to allow the same polices to be maintained and expanded without abatement. These are polices that have brought this country to the brink of ruin, and both the Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible, yet we continue to listen, continue to vote for puppet leaders whose strings are being pulled by the corporate one-percenters behind the curtains.

Elections are making us choke
Illusions of choice are a joke
It's all just a ploy
For sheep to enjoy
Like rabbits enjoy a good smoke

The Limerick King

cynthia said...

Eli -- The Democratic Party has not been a real opposition party since the Labor Unions died out and lost their power, and people were taught to think of themselves as "middle class," not "working class." Eliminate the Electoral College and television presidential advertising with a Constitutional Amendment and an opposition party might manage to emerge.

There is such a 'tempest in a teacup' dialog going on here about the absolutely absurd state of what passes for our political system.

Voters are more or less held hostage to a system that proactively suppresses the practice of representative democracy.

Too much money, too many laws passed to specifically dis-empower the electorate and too much magical thinking by the supporters of the status quo prevent any meaningful change from happening from within the system.

Real change will ONLY come when enough of us turn our backs on the current economic, social and political paradigm.

If not already here, the totalitarian state is only one step away.

Can we prevent it from arriving? No. Can we slow its arrival? No. Can we resist it when it arrives? That depends on how much sacrifice anyone is willing to make.

Wall Street has captured the State
Of this there can be no debate
Their power will rise
As liberty dies
And standards of living deflate

The Limerick King

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

I believe in looking at data. The data tell me that when Democrats are in power, the gap between rich and poor narrows, even if only slightly. When Republicans are in power, it widens.

When Democrats are in power, Earth Science funding tends to increase. When Republicans are in power, they make sure all the antennae are pointed away from Earth so we won't see what we are doing to the planet.

And so on.

We have two choices. We make things better, or we make things worse. There is no neutral ground. Better. Worse. Perfect or even Good are not on the ballot, either in the election or in life. Pick.

Anonymous said...

The Democratic Party has not been a real opposition party since the Labor Unions died out and lost their power

Having just gone through this action in Madison, Wisconsin I can tell you that union busting has been the priority of all right wing parties for some time now. It's all part of their anti-social (ism) order agenda. They seek to uneducate the public to be able to better manipulate them for profit.

cynthia said...

Dilbert -- The problem is the poor and the middle class produce only real wealth such as autos, houses, services, and other widgets, whereas the wealthy can produce unlimited imaginary paper wealth, seemingly out of thin air. Somehow this power to create such unlimited amounts of assets out of thin air has made the average person feel smaller and smaller and ever more impotent and alienated. Somehow, people must snap out of their denial and see this economy for what it is, a giant fraud. About 90% of Wall Street services and products could be eliminated without any damage to the real economy, if we had a leader with the guts to take them on. President Obama promised to back Main Street, not Wall Street, and he was an epic fail from the very start.

Kleptocrats thought they could fly
By printing their way to the sky
But wings made of paper
Were part of the caper
Their system of greed will now die

The Limerick King

Lewis Cleverdon said...

Eli - I suspect that you are right over Bloomberg deciding to state the obvious, but perhaps for a different reason than yours.

His coming out ends the consensus of silence across corporate America, which has allowed Obama to hide behind the fabricated circus of denial as an excuse for his silence and total lack of commensurate action on climate.

For years criticizing him has been discouraged across the progressive/climate-focussed circles "for fear of finding something worse". Having just demonstrated that he'd rather risk losing the election than encourage demand for climate action, how is he going to be treated if he wins ?



EliRabett said...

Ah, but Obama DID take significant action on the climate front, doubling the fleet mileage limits, the EPA findings on regulation and damage from greenhouse gases, an executive order demanding that all agencies reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases significantly. And Eli pointed out about three years ago that action on climate change would come via regulation not legislation.

Lewis Cleverdon said...

Eli - I guess I could have used 'commensurate' rather than 'significant' -

For instance, as far as I can recall, Obama's Cafe changes will by 2022 get US standards up to what the UK's were ten years ago -

The US Cancun pledge of 3.67% off 1990 by 2020 might now be met by the measures you describe on top of the slump, but meanwhile global emissions are rising at three or four percent per year, not least because the US shows no interest in a treaty.

From this perspective, Obama has yet to take any commensurate action - so I'm wondering whether progressives will just be grateful for occasional lip-service on climate, or whether deference to power might actually be binned in favour of demanding action ?