Helping Bloomberg understand 'stupid'

This cover today is making the rounds in the alarmosphere, where a single storm, a single data point in the hundreds of hurricanes that have struck the USA during its history, is now apparently “proof” of global warming causing bad weather. It is just another silly example of Tabloid Climatology™.

Hurricane expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. says:

The only accurate part of this Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover is “stupid”

There, I fixed it for you. 


The US Has Had 285 Hurricane Strikes Since 1850: ‘The U.S. has always been vulnerable to hurricanes. 86% of U.S. hurricane strikes occurred with CO2 below Hansen’s safe level of 350 PPM’

If there’s anything in this data at all, it looks like CO2 is preventing more US landfalling hurricanes.

Data from: 

Source of graph, Steve Goddard.

In case you wish to tell Bloomberg about this fix:

Bloomberg Businessweek Editor

Patti Straus

+1 212 617 3279

UPDATE: from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

Normalized US Hurricane Damage 1900-2012, Including Sandy

The graph above shows normalized US hurricane damage, based on data from ICAT, which applies an extension to the methodology of Pielke et al. 2008. The 2012 estimate for Sandy comes from Moody’s, and is an estimate.  The red line represents a linear best fit to the data — it is flat.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Do you have an email address for the editor of Bloomberg BusinessWeek? I wish to leave him a short message.
REPLY: Bloomberg Businessweek
Patti Straus
+1 212 617 3279


As much as I agree with the point you are arguing, the above chart is meaningless because of the vast differences in years the earth was at the various concetrations of CO2.
A more meaningfull chart would have the horizontal axis by years, and on the vertical axis plot both number of hurricanes and CO2 concentrations.
ACE numbers might be even better than CO2 concentrations, though fewer people know what ACE is. Perhaps all three, though that might be getting a little busy.

Jesse Farmer

Bwahahaa you gotta be kidding me with that last plot. Gee, I wonder why there’s less hurricane strikes at the highest CO2 levels? Perhaps because CO2 is rising at an increasing rate and so the total amount of time spent within each CO2 “bin” becomes less and less?
If there’s anything at all in that data at all, it’s that you cannot come up with a scientifically sound interpretation at all.

Gene Selkov

Bloomberg proves you can be very rich and be a complete idiot

Theo Barker

Apparently, Michael Bloomberg is a statist. Soda cup sizes, weather, etc.


Bloomberg Businessweek
It’s Just … Stupid
That’s a better fix.


Actually, the LACK of hurricanes is about the only good correlation between CO2 and the climate I have seen.

Pull My Finger

I’m “this close” from disengaging from this whole debate, the opponent has become too stupid and/or disingenuine to even have an argument with.

Pull My Finger

I don’t use this term lightly, but Bloomberg is a fascist. He thinks he is right about everything and will break the law to his will and force his agenda on all of NYC come hell or, um, high water.


Are hurricanes common in October?
Is there any measure of energy in those hurricanes so that we can see whether they are more energetic?
How long has CO2 been at 390 ppm and how long was it at 280ppm – I’d like to compare duration with duration?
Just a few questions any skeptic could ask.

Graham Jarvis

It’s big, it’s scary, it’s incredibly destructive and disruptive! Therefore, it’s evil! What’s the most evil thing you can think of, people? Wait for it … “Climate Change!” … Let Forrest Gump have the last word on this – “Stupid is as stupid does”.

Matt G

Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.
Decade Saffir-Simpson Category
All 1,2,3,4,5 Major (3,4,5) /1 2 3 4 5
1851-1860 8 5 5 1 0 19 6
1861-1870 8 6 1 0 0 15 1
1871-1880 7 6 7 0 0 20 7
1881-1890 8 9 4 1 0 22 5
1891-1900 8 5 5 3 0 21 8
1901-1910 10 4 4 0 0 18 4
1911-1920 10 4 4 3 0 21 7
1921-1930 5 3 3 2 0 13 5
1931-1940 4 7 6 1 1 19 8
1941-1950 8 6 9 1 0 24 10
1951-1960 8 1 5 3 0 17 8
1961-1970 3 5 4 1 1 14 6
1971-1980 6 2 4 0 0 12 4
1981-1990 9 1 4 1 0 15 5
1991-2000 3 6 4 0 1 14 5
2001-2004 4 2 2 1 0 9 3
1851-2004 109 72 71 18 3 273 92
Average Per Decade 7.1 4.7 4.6 1.2 0.2 17.7 6.0
Hurricane activity and the severity of them was worse during the 1930’s to 1960’s than post 1970’s. Even the decades 1851-1860, 1871-1880, 1881-1890, 1891-1900, 1911-1920 were worse than post 1970’s. The people that say yes to hurricanes caused by AGW, you clearly don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The scientific facts say you are wrong, but do any of you actually care about science?

Pull My Finger

I love how LIberals mockingly berate Red States getting hit with natural disasters as God’s revenge and other nonsense. So what’s the metaphysical implications here? The ghost of George Washington smiting NYC for allowing some malevloent dictator to serve an illegal third term? Yep, that’s what I’m going with.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

Jesse Farmer says:
November 1, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Bwahahaa you gotta be kidding me with that last plot. Gee, I wonder why there’s less hurricane strikes at the highest CO2 levels? Perhaps because CO2 is rising at an increasing rate and so the total amount of time spent within each CO2 “bin” becomes less and less?
If there’s anything at all in that data at all, it’s that you cannot come up with a scientifically sound interpretation at all.

Is the CO2 ‘bin’ being confused with the loonie ‘bin’ here? Oh never mind. I’ll just say that your ‘critique’ basically makes no grammatical sense. At all.

Matt G

“All 1,2,3,4,5 Major (3,4,5) /1 2 3 4 5”
Should be Cat 1,2,3,4,5, All, Major (3,4,5)

Dodgy Geezer

Maybe it would be a good idea to read the contents of the Bloomberg article before firing off an emails?
Just a thought….

Bob Maginnis

Here is a list of hurricanes, and note which ones happened in late October
We see that the big late October storm was in 1998,
which was a very warm year thanks to the El Nino.
I see the other late storm was on 2005


[snip – language]


Bloomberg is supposed to provide accurate data for investment banking, trading, research, arbitrage, attorneys, private investors and so on, from which it makes up to $6 billion a year. The managers of your pension and other investments frequently have to rely on the accuracy of Bloomberg’s data and journalism, such as that from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The headline implies that your money should be invested in renewable energy to save the world. Investors should not rely on tabloid investment advice.


We can be sure Warran S Warran from the APS will be quick to denounce this….

Laurie Bowen

I can see it now! I’m just trying to sell a few magazines. But, I like your fix. . . very catchy!


Gene Selkov –
of course it’s the same Bloomberg who is now endorsing Obama because of Sandy/CAGW:
Wikipedia: Bloomberg L.P.
Bloomberg L.P. was founded by Michael Bloomberg with the help of Thomas Secunda, Duncan MacMillan, and Charles Zegar in 1981 and a 30% ownership investment by Merrill Lynch…
Bloomberg L.P. was formed as a Delaware Limited Partnership in 1981 and has been in business since 1983. Michael Bloomberg owns 88% of the partnership. Bloomberg’s core business is leasing terminals to subscribers. It also runs Bloomberg Television, a financial Television network, and a business radio station WBBR in New York City at a loss…
In 2009, Bloomberg acquired BusinessWeek, a consumer oriented business magazine and Web property, from McGraw-Hill…
while WUWT concentrates more on the CAGW science, over at JoanneNova Bloomberg/Businessweek’s fanatacism for CO2 trading/renewable subsidies (under their Sustainability section particularly) is closely tracked in the comments. the catastrophic AGW stories are for the general public, but the real backing for CAGW aka “CO2 trading” can be found, more than anywhere else, in the specialist financial press, especially REUTERS POINT CARBON (which is now hiding most of its articles behind a subscription paywall) and Bloomberg/Businessweek.
sceptics would be wise to keep watch on both media outlets, if they appreciate the axiom “FOLLOW THE MONEY”, after all, it is public money we are talking about here, such as pension funds, subsidies, etc.

The cover provides a bold statement which anyone with even cursory knowledge of Pielke or Goddard’s work would contest. Sure, I could read the article, but then I’d never get those 5 minutes back.
Why even waste the effort? Tabloid climatology indeed.
I do agree however the Goddard graph above is not a well-formed rebuttal, too many holes to poke through it. All one needs do is look at MattG’s response above, or read any of Goddard’s guest posts on ACE versus CO2 rise on WUWT.


@Bob Maginnis
Later in warmer years?
That makes sense, as these storms in this region seem to happen as the northern hemisphere COOLS towards winter.

Here’s Bloomberg’s article on his site endorsing Obama and AGW = Sandy
The numerous warmist articles and headlines on his site have shown how he’s leaning. He recently added a Sustainability tab to his site, containing much propaganda from warmist organizations.

Michael Jankowski

Cuomo also said he was talking to Obama about how NY gets “100 year storms every 1-2 years now.” I highly doubt Cuomo has a clue as to how many varieties of “100 year storms” there are in the first place.
Interestingly enough, according to a source on wikipedia, the strongest hurricane to hit NY/NJ in this millenia was between 1278-1438.


“It’s Global Warming, Stupid”
Bloomberg’s message is only for stupid people (they say so themselves).
Smart people know better–much better!
Silly Bloomberg.


Jesse Farmer says:
November 1, 2012 at 1:44 pm
“Bwahahaa you gotta be kidding me with that last plot. Gee, I wonder why there’s less hurricane strikes at the highest CO2 levels? Perhaps because CO2 is rising at an increasing rate and so the total amount of time spent within each CO2 “bin” becomes less and less?”
Looks like we had 320 ppm in 1960. Since that time CO2 concentration growth has accelerated 3fold; yet the bigger hurricane strike counts happen even before that time.

stephen richards

MarkW says:
November 1, 2012 at 1:43 pm
As much as I agree with the point you are arguing, the above chart is meaningless because of the vast differences in years the earth was at the various concetrations of CO2.
No Mark, It’s because there is soooo much CO² in the atmosphere that the weight of swirling around is doing more damage. All those years it has been increasing every year all over the planet because it’s well mixed. So you see the chart is probably rubbish as you say. ;))

William Rice

Jesse Farmer makes a fair point, although obnoxiously. You should normalize the data to have bins with consistent # of years. The graph would be more reasonable if the count of hurricanes was annualized. However, I don’t think it would change the conclusions, it just might not be as dramatic a drop at higher PPM.

Matt G

Bob Maginnis says:
November 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm
October is a fairly common month for hurricanes and since the 1850’s at least 50 have occurred then. (Roughly 1 in every 3 years)

Laurie Bowen

Wait wait . . . . I got it, I got it! Let’s look at the cell phone use . . . punching all those “holes” in the ionosphere! Maybe, that will fly? It’s the next best thing!
4D Ionosphere in Google Earth

How is it that a Tropical storm hitting the east coast is proof of global warming, while most of Europe having it’s first snow of the season a month early isn’t proof of an incipient ice age? Same logic, right?


“Bloomberg BusinessWeek Is Stupid”
…. Or why circulation has dropped and people are subscribing to more objective business magazines.
Also in this issue: Why Stalin got it right. Bloomberg talks with business leaders about his plans for the state to nationalize their companies. Spotlight on Hugo Chavez and the big success of Marxism in Venezuela.


Dear Patti Straus go hug a icebear with Al Gore , and rid us of your stupidity , thanks

Matt G

Matt G says:
November 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm
(At least 50 is referring to to number that strike the US mainland)

Laurie Bowen

Or how about from Bloomberg endorses Obama, citing Sandy and climate change
Get it while it’s kinda new in the ionisphere . . .

I’m with “pull my finger”. The debate has got so stupid its not worth engaging anymore. The people are so ignorant they can’t see bloomberg is using the climate bogeyman for political gain. They can’t see greenpeace and the left use it to scare them into accepting social change. I give up, they will get what they deserve soon.


As a corollary to Mr. Jankowski’s comment, I guess AGW must be responsible for all the other hurricanes that have struck New York and New Jersey over the intervening centuries:


Yeah, I’ve been battling an AGW troll who simply ridicules rather than discusses. He refuses to discuss peer-reviewed data from NASA and Nature on hurricanes.

Koos meteorologist

Maybe Bloomberg understands that this superstorm wouldn’t have been so devastating without climate change (due to greenhouse gases we supplied). He might have spoken with scientists/climatologists?
Referring to: “it’s just weather stupid!” I would like to remind you to the article placed here september 19th 2011 about early snowfall in the Alps. There was a tiny spell pf 2 days that the Alps were covered with snow in the middel of two months (Augus and September !!) that wer both on highest average temperature ever measured (OK since msm’s begon).
That was really worth placing it in context: “it is just weather stupid!”

Gary Pearse

I read the article before I came to find it in WUWT. It is full of the same “talking points” that have long since been falsified – ever increasing temps, hotter oceans, more numerous and destructive hurricanes, droughts, etc. etc. with a quote from a German insurer that they have had to raise risk by a couple of hundred percent in US and even 50% in Africa (where, in the tropical band, the temps have been unchanged in a century). I believe Bloomy news has a comments string.


David Thomas Bronzich says:
November 1, 2012 at 2:47 pm
“How is it that a Tropical storm hitting the east coast is proof of global warming, while most of Europe having it’s first snow of the season a month early isn’t proof of an incipient ice age? Same logic, right?”
A German TV guy, Kleber from (warmist) public TV ZDF, explained it exactly the other way round: Hurricane Sandy was in his words just weather, but the early snow in Germany caused by climate change, via abnormal melting of arctic sea ice.
But it’s not a contradiction – in each country, the local weather events are used by the local warmists as proof of climate change, while events abroad are just weather. It all fits together when one considers the first tenet of Warmism: The end justifies the means.

Sean Peake

This the same Bloomberg who has runs a window AC unit in his SUV and flies off to Bermeda every weekend in his private jet. Man, those green 1%ers are really starting to piss me off.

lurker, passing through laughing

Typical wealthy attitude: “If it happens to me, it MUST be uniquely bad.”
Bloomberg should have spent less time obsessing over what size drinks New Yorkers choose, and spent more time paying attention to insurance company warnings that much of New York and Long Island are vulnerable to storms and storm surge.
The industry was reducing its exposure in the storm vulnerable areas of New york for years. If people like Bloomberg were not so historically illiterate, they would not make the stupid assertions they seem to rely on.

Hmmm. i thought it had been renamed climate change.


The reason for the desperation is failing investments and threats to the funding trough. Al Gore is dis-investing in Green. The BBC has put quite a lot of money into carbon schemes. Alleged climate scientists like M. Mann are being ridiculed. Oil funding for the likes of CRU and Stanford climate unit may soon dry up. Now it’s all falling apart thanks to a little help from skeptics, the weather and disaster fatigue. It will soon be over – THE END IS NIGH – again.

At the tail end of the “Tropical Storm Sandy” thread I posted a list of ten things I’d do if I were mayor of NYC. I post a revised version below. Listen up, Bloomberg!
1. Office buildings must be made flood-resistant with sealable doorways, first floor windows, shafts, etc. These measures mightn’t prevent some incursion of water, but that could be coped with by a sump pump, backed by emergency power, feeding into a hose whose outlet is above the first floor windows. This would prevent a flood of salt water from ruining electrical and electronic equipment (e.g., for elevators) in the basement. Even without a backup pump, sealing most openings would keep water incursion down enough so that, once the crest of the surge had passed, the basement could be bailed out.
2. Where it is practical, similar flood-proofing measures should be implemented for residential buildings, especially large ones. This measure, and the one above, would still be worthwhile a expenditure even if there were some chance of total or partial failure, or even if it wouldn’t work in a worst-case scenario. If most buildings would be protected against most of the damage from most storm surges, the expense is justified.
3. Instead of focusing primarily on evacuation to shelters, except as a fallback measure, superintendents of low-lying residential buildings should be required to stockpile some emergency rations and supplies (emergency lighting, for instance) for residents. These could be stored in newly added lockers or sheds on the roof, paid for by the city. The storage lockers on the roof should be resistant to break-ins and accessible by keys held by the superintendent and a few trusted residents on upper floors. A very loud alarm would sound when the shed or locker is opened. (This is the method used to protect emergency doors from being casually opened.)
4. Such lockers would also stockpile hammocks to accommodate displaced residents of ground-level apartments. Attachment posts for such hammocks must be installed in the hallways of such residences.
5. A bulletin board and/or whiteboard, with thumbtacks and pens, should be installed on the second floor where residents could post requests for help, or offers of assistance, for other residents to read. In large buildings, such boards could be installed on every floor, or every other floor.
6. Local-area (two-block square?) phone booklets should be printed every six months by the phone company and distributed to superintendents for distribution to residents in case of emergency, so inter-building cooperation could be organized. Ditto for online lists containing the e-mails of local-area residents who volunteer to let that data be revealed in the event of an emergency.
7. The population of low-lying areas should be encouraged to stockpile a little extra food, such as canned corned beef, tuna fish, etc., before the height of the hurricane season, or at least in advance of major approaching storms.
8. Buildings should be required to install whole-building surge protectors to guard the sensitive electronics inside (even on appliances that are nominally “off” like TVs and microwaves) from being fried by surges preceding or following a blackout. And all residents and businesses should be encouraged to acquire HEFTY Uninterruptible Power Supplies for their computers.
9. All buildings must have emergency lighting systems installed in their hallways and stairways.
10. Superintendents, and perhaps “floor captains” in large apartment buildings, should be given bullhorns, stored in lockers, with which they could reach many residents at once.


scientificintegrity says:
November 1, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Hmmm. i thought it had been renamed climate change.

Let me assist you. It’s called ‘climate change’ when there is no disaster. It’s called ‘global warming’ when there is a disaster. It’s called ‘climate disruption’ when they are talking out of their arses.