Bloomberg Businessweek thinks some of you are stupid
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Bloomberg Businessweek thinks some of you are stupid
And since the cover apparently wasn't provocative enough, the magazine's editor said on Twitter: "Our cover story this week may generate controversy, but only among the stupid."
Meanwhile, who wrote this? (Answer to come later in the day): (Blogger's note: There's more below -- you have to click on the link!)
NEW YORK—Following Hurricane Sandy’s destructive tear through the Northeast this week, the nation’s 300 million citizens looked upon the trail of devastation and fully realized, for the first time, that this is just going to be something that happens from now on.
Gradually comprehending that this sort of thing is now just a fact of life, citizens all across America stared blankly at images of destroyed homes, major cities paralyzed by flooding, and ravaged communities covered in debris, and finally acknowledged that this, apparently, is now a regular part of the human experience.
“Oh, I see—this is just going to be how it is from here on out,” said New York City resident Brian Marcello, coming to terms with the fact that an immense storm that cripples mass transit systems and knocks out power for millions in the nation’s largest metropolitan area can no longer be regarded as an isolated, freak incident, and will henceforth be just a normal thing that happens. “Hugely destructive weather events are going to keep happening, and they are going to get worse and worse, and living through them is something that will be a part of all our lives from now on, whether we like it or not.”
Comments (33)
Well the stupid, or those like the Koch Bros. who profit from global warming.— carl and sons- There's a very real difference between warning the people on the Titanic that the ship is sinking, and telling people everything's cool because you have a big investment in a travel agency.
The people who are dying in these storms or seeing their homes destroyed probably understand that difference a little better than a sold-out hack like you.— carl and sons - Eventually you can still deny it all you want you still won't find an underwriter. So, recall the right wing meme where they threw out the, "so what" phrasing? Dennis Miller said, "can't we just say its -- kinda nice out?" They the right wing elite can say whatever they want publicly as long as they have the equal and opposite private reaction of making real adjustments to counter this trend.— Murrayman
- Weren't there destructive hurricanes along the shore in the 1950s and 1960s, and then a lull thereafter. Was there global warming leading up to those 2 earlier decades? If so, what happened thereafter?— Thoughtful&concernedvoter
- Thank goodness Bloomberg outlawed 20 ounce sodas.
Imagine all the additional destruction there would have been with those 20 oz bottles floating in NY Harbor?— Mr. Smith - Consumer confidence at a 4.5 year high. Great news for America, bad news for the GOP!— chasing history
- Talk about a "tallest midget" statement. 4.5 years ago we were in the midst of the biggest economic freak out in the last 60 years.
So what you're saying is consumer confidence is now equal to what it was when we were in the midst of the financial panic of 2008. - It's now equal to where we were 7 months PRIOR to the financial meltdown. Swing and a miss! — chasing history
- You tool. 4.5 years ago we were in the first quarter of 2008. Go look at a timeline and educate yourself, the house of cards on the financial crisis were already falling (http://timeline.stlouisfed.org/index.cfm?p=timeline#):
- BofA buys Countrywide Financial so it doesn't go belly-up
- FOMC cuts the federal funds rate and the primary credit rates almost in half
- Carlyle Capital defaults, and the UK takes over one of its largest mortgage lender (Northern Rock)
- The fed announces programs pumping hundreds of billions into the mortgage market (TSLF, TAF)
- JP Morgan Chase buys Bear Stearns with backing from the Fed
... and that's just what happened in the first quarter 0f 2008.
Your statement is only true if you mark the beginning of the financial meltdown at the time of the Lehman Bros bankruptcy in Sept 2008, like somehow the meltdown came out of the blue with that event.
In mid-July, 2007, just before the wheels started to roll off deep in the financial markets, consumer confidence stood at 112.6.
Swing and a miss, Chasing. Swing and a big miss. 
"...and will henceforth be just a normal thing that happens."
OK then, just accept it and move on. If you think that some political policy or government mandates are going to stop the earth from doing it's thing, then maybe the "stupid" label points in the wrong direction.— jmc- I'm still waiting for Mittens to drop off the disaster relief supplies he bought at Walmart. A couple cans of cream corn would be pretty tasty now. And he could drop off some diapers for baldymcfatkins and perhaps a car charger for his Zachary Morris cell phone.
Time to take off the apron Mittens and start being a leader!— The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine - Maybe Ryan can come over and wash your already clean dishes for you. — carl and sons
- Wow, that's the way to get people to agree with your points. Call em stupid. Works every time.— General Turgidson
- So, should I go long on carbon offset credits? That's the biggest scam going. Follow the money trail, Mr. Bunch.— FletcherT
- The science is settled .... at the bottom of the dumpster: Hysterical queens like (Will Bunch) are demanding we introduce global taxation, micro-regulation of every aspect of your life, massive multi-trillion dollar transfers from the productive sector to eco-rackets and transnational bureaucracies, bovine flatulence levies and extraterrestrial surveillance of once sovereign states on the basis of fevered speculations for which there is no raw data (University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data). (M Steyn/J Treacher)
— teardownthisfishwrap - Sorry Will, this has nothing to do with global warming / climate change. There is no substantial link of increased GHG emissions from humans to changes in climate. There are theories, and for those who want stand behind those theories, circumstantial evidence. But climate change is a self fulfulling prophecy, emissions are up, weather is changing. The climate system is well beyond our current comprehension, to blame large scale climate shifts (let alone individual storms) on human GHG emissions is completely unscientific. This is not to say we shouldn't get off oil and coal, their are pleanty of other reasons to do so. But no real evidence for climate change is out there, the data has been presented in a way to make it appear so, by people with an agenda. And worse yet, the so called "historic data" found in ice core samples that is supposed to back up l0,000+ years of temperature and GHG records has been found to be compromised and unreliable. So really, at best all we have is data from a few 100 years, which is like basing a presidental poll on 10 people.— Greg S
- Three trillion dollars in revenue, and yet the Federal Government still refuses to pay any Federal income tax.— Mr. Smith
- ===]]] There is no substantial link of increased GHG emissions from humans to changes in climate. There are theories, and for those who want stand behind those theories, circumstantial evidence. [[[===
Interesting. I read climate blogs a lot. Well known "skeptics" such as Anthony Watts, or Pat Michaels, or Roger Pielke Sr., or Steve McIntyre, all say that "skeptics" don't doubt that the Earth is warming or that ACO2 has a warming influence - they only doubt the extent of the impact. Yet I frequently read such comments such as the one I just quoted.
There are a tiny handful of scientists who agree with Greg S, but even the vast majority of scientists who consider themselves to be "skeptics" are in disagreement with him.
Makes one wonder why Greg S is so confident in his opinion, doesn't it?
— Talking point sleuth - ===]]] And worse yet, the so called "historic data" found in ice core samples that is supposed to back up l0,000+ years of temperature and GHG records has been found to be compromised and unreliable. [[[===
So you're saying that ice core samples, on the whole, have been proven invalid? Got a reference, Greg? This should be fascinating.— Talking point sleuth - ===]]] on the basis of fevered speculations for which there is no raw data [[[===
Really. No "raw" data. Fascinating.— Talking point sleuth - ===]]] Wow, that's the way to get people to agree with your points. Call em stupid. Works every time. [[[===
Bucky finally gets one right. Congrats! Bound to happen sooner or later.— Talking point sleuth - I'm confident that there isnt anything close to sufficient evidence. There are warming trends, but they are very short term. ACO2 increases are theorized to impact things, but again only theorized. Go ahead and read papers about geoengineering, climate scientists will tell you they are against it because it is too unpredictable and experiements havent followed models. Yet,these are the same models, and the same science that experts like to claim proves man made climate change. Odd that they are so confident in science behind one model but not the others?
Ice sheet source, here you go, you have to read carefully, because if I recall correctly this paper is about how ice melts and refreezes, meaning it is very difficult to be sure what period sample are from... and therefore putting all data that relied on ice core samples very much in question.
Bell, R., Ferraccioli, F., Creyts, T., Braaten, D., Corr, H., Das, I., et al. (3 March 2011). Widespread Persistent Thickening of East Antarctic Ice Sheet by Freezing from Base. Science, 1200109. doi:10.1126/science.1200109
And look, I'm not saying we shouldnt do A LOT of the things that would prevent climate change should it be true. What I am saying is that its far from settled, and those who like to spit out climate change as a dogma have an agenda. If that agenda is anti-coal and anti-oil, you'd be better served to show healthcare data which is much more realiable, on the cost to treat people impacted by the pollution. Or simply note how our entire way of life changes and the economy dies when gasoline/diesel reaches $25 a gallon.— Greg S - "those like the Koch Bros. who profit from global warming"
Some other of "those":
"George Soros & Al Gore both own percentages of green energy companies, and stocks in car companies that build hybrid cars.
Soros & Gore both want their profits to multiply through the production of wind farms, hybrid cars, recycling centers, biofuels, and other green energy".
VERDICT: Given the difficultly in tracking donations to nonprofits and charitable organizations, it's almost impossible to quantify whether the Koch brothers or Soros dominate the political realm. That said, both the Kochs and Soros have spent incredible riches in this area with no sign of stopping.
At least the Koch Bros. invest in things that don't cost the middle class billions in failed projects. LIBS continue their idiocy!!!...Libs..UGH...LOL!!!
— sarah89 - ===]]] And look, I'm not saying we shouldnt do A LOT of the things that would prevent climate change should it be true. [[[===
I get that Greg. No doubt, there is clear evidence of the harm from ACO2 related to burning fossil fuels above and beyond any impact on the climate.
===]]] Go ahead and read papers about geoengineering, climate scientists will tell you they are against it because it is too unpredictable and experiements havent followed models. Yet,these are the same models, and the same science that experts like to claim proves man made climate change. Odd that they are so confident in science behind one model but not the others? [[[===
Now this doesn't follow, logically. First, you aren't being consistent - in saying that they are the "same models" and then saying "one model but not the other." Secondly, you can't compare the amount of scientific study of doing something like introducing massive amounts of reflective aerosols the atmosphere with the amount of scientific study there has been of the GHG effect. That said, there is much empirical evidence about the impact of the introduction of aerosols as we've seen with volcanoes. Obviously the main concern is related to potential unintended consequences of introducing aerosols.
Of course there are uncertainties with ice core data
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/reports/trieste2008/ice-cores.pdf
- but if you are suggesting that they are invalid as a means of establishing temperature records or atmospheric CO2, you are way outside the scientific mainstream - even for "skeptics." Look at what Richard Alley says about ice core data:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34297/— Talking point sleuth - Who here thought it was funny and who thought it was tragic that all of those government-funded Fisker Karma luxury EVs caught on fire and exploded after being submerged in Sandy's flooding of the North jersey port?
Just tragic.— Mr. Smith - Essentially ice core data is supposed to represent a snapshot in history of the atmosphere, providing data on temperature and compostion (CO2 levels), there are other things like tree ring samples that can be used. But when trying to provide a long term map of climate and CO2, ice cores are most often cited. If suddenly last year we discovered that they melt and refreeze far more often than was previously believed, well that means it becomes far more difficult to determine what time period a sample was from, therefore how that fits into a climate model. It pretty much calls into question not accuracy of the samples, but in what order you place the samples in your spreadsheet of the last 10,000+ years. Do they go in 4000 BC or 1000 AD, suddenly that becomes unknown, so creating you are creating unreliable trends.
Regarding geoengineering. There absolutely have been more studies on ACO2 and climate change, but as you mention the most common discussed form of geoengineering, sulfer emissions from volcanos. There is LOTS of data on this. To say scientist are uncertain of this compared to climate change because of lack of data would be false. And the unintended consequences are exactly the point, there are also unintended / unknown impacts of GHG emissions. The science of global warming likes to examine how GHG will trap in heat and increase temperature, thats the heart of the model and theory. In simple terms trapping in heat would mean temperatures would rise. But trapping in that heat would also help plants grow, which would in turn absorb CO2, or any other number of unintented impact of increase CO2 in system with millions of variables. We just don't know, and I suppose thats the point. It could be a million times worse than we imagine or be nothing at all. Its like predicting a football teams record when you only know 8 of the 52 players, how can you make proper assumptions from that?— Greg S - It's 2012 Stupid!!! You were not prepared for global warning disaster. What now looking for your next JOB in Washington???— Clark_Kent_SuperHero
- I'll say this for the stupid, they sure are not shy. They go out of their way to prove that cover right every chance they get. Maybe this is why college faculty and news reporters are perceived as liberal -- because they are educated, informed and intelligent.— Mr. Baseball
- I burned a cr@pload of fossil fuels running my generator non stop. It was awesome.— RG
- Plus, we all know a Youtube video was behind the destructive behavior of Sandy.— RG
For those f you still arguing fault... Wake up. It doesn't matter. It would be better to concentrate on solutions. Obama is a failure. Face it and move on. He is making things worse with more of his false promises. It's time to start looking for someone who agenda doesn't include race baiting, deception, help Nancy Pelosi make a million dollar insider stock trade or instutionalizing healthcare for illegal immigrants and malingering political supporters. Now, we can continue to do nothing while the country falls apart or we can take a chance on change. I'm happy to go either way but there will be no mercy for my fellow man if they vote for Obama again. Can't stand racism, elitism or entitlement mindsets. Vote only on the issues.— SocialReject- GREG S hit the nail on the head. We just don't know how to interpret the data even if I can be deemed reliable. Too many conflicting interpretations and not many new methods of determining the quality of the evidence. Essentially, fear mongering pondering to someone's bank account.— SocialReject
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: