People send me stuff. This one, submitted to WUWT’s “submit a story” is quite something in that I’ve never seen someone take such a principled stand before getting a job. It usually comes afterwards. In this case, Bloomberg’s dabbling in “Tabloid Climatology” has led to a proactive resignation. – Anthony
A response to Bloomberg Business Week’s climate hysteria from someone who *was* considering working for them…
Below is a message I sent to Bloomberg today after cancelling my attendance at the ‘Bloomberg Assessment Test’ today. The test is aimed at graduates who want to break into the finance industry. I had been booked into this assessment for some time previously, however upon reading the ‘Bloomberg Business Week’ article ‘It’s Global Warming, Stupid‘ on November 1st, I decided I no longer wanted to have anything to do with Bloomberg. – Danny Weston
Dear Sir / Madam,
I write regarding my cancellation of attendance at the ‘Bloomberg Assessment Test’ that I was due to sit today (Weds 7th Nov 2012). I wanted to communicate my reasons for doing so.
As I am sure Bloomberg and its various holdings and affiliates hold potential candidates for employment to the highest standards, I also hold potential employers to similarly high standards, especially as – unlike many of the new graduates who will be applying via the BAT – I will be completing my PhD in the Philosophy of Computing having already had many years of gainful employment and a wide ranging skillset that would be attractive to a prospective employer such as Bloomberg. Indeed, I previously worked in the city as a qualified electronic trading systems consultant and have developed skills and experience since in both IT and research roles that would be valuable in city roles, should I choose to return to the finance and investment banking industry.
On November 1st, one of your holdings – ‘Bloomberg Business Week’ – published a highly misleading article, leading on the front page – ‘It’s Global Warming, Stupid’. Had this article been written by a guest contributor, or represented a rare deviation from the content typically provided by this publication, I would have ignored it. However in this case it was written by assistant managing editor and senior writer Paul Barrett and continues a running theme in the publication for promoting unsubstantiated nonsense on the issue of anthropogenic global warming that appears intended only to maximise hysterical fear, uncertainty and doubt. The author constructed a narrative using such wildly inappropriate and factually untrue terminology as “Now we have weather on steroids,” – the kind of language that one might read and could be forgiven for thinking one was reading a satirical piece from The Onion or The Daily Mash.
The straw – albeit a particularly dense one – that truly broke the camel’s back for me however, was Bloomberg editor Josh Tyrangiel tweeting that same day, presumably to ramp up sales of this particular issue that, “Our cover story this week may generate controversy, but only among the stupid.” This is not language becoming of the editor of a major mainstream news publication and solidifies my opinion that BBW is an outlet for propaganda, rhetoric and schoolboy level insults, not a publication to be taken seriously – especially for anyone who works in the business world needing facts on the ground on which to make decisions. And the facts on the ground are that not only are the claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming highly uncertain and also often wildly exaggerated, but that even many of the experts who stand behind alarming claims made regarding the latter disputed any feasible links to Hurricane Sandy.
During my time working in the city previously, my favourite aspect of the work was that I could always appeal to the bottom line. The ‘can do’ culture meant that rational changes and risks would be given the nod if they would result in a likely improvement. It was the complete opposite to the ossified bureaucratic culture I’d experienced working in the public sector. A core part of this however was an attendance to the truth – markets can be distorted and played of course – however ultimately they are a slave to truth, which is why market corrections and detection of bubbles is so important. Bubbles and fraud on the other hand are kept alive with the dead hand of careless propaganda and lies. And it appears to be the latter to which BBW wishes to be associated.
To that extent I cannot in good conscience work for an organisation such as Bloomberg, nor rely on its recommendation via the BAT for work elsewhere in the industry. I will – as I have usually done – make my own way and on my own merits. If Bloomberg is willing to tolerate publication of work that is nothing but insulting propaganda by one of its holdings then I believe its days are numbered as a reliable truth telling adjunct to the financial industry and I do not wish to be associated with it.
Yours sincerely,
Danny Weston
Phd Candidate, Philosophy of Computing
Department of Communications and Creative Arts
University of Greenwich
London
###
Related articles
- Helping Bloomberg understand ‘stupid’ (wattsupwiththat.com)
- IPCC – “Sandy Was Not Caused By Anthropogenic Global Warming” (toryaardvark.com)
- Bloomberg Business: ‘It’s Global Warming, Stupid.’ (papundits.wordpress.com)
- New paper cuts recent anthropogenic warming trend in half (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Bloomberg’s Magazine Calls Stupid People “Stupid” (theawl.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anyone who seriously believes AGW is a serious problem, and does NOT immediately revert to an Amish (or more primitive) lifestyle, is a hypocrite. Bloomberg is no exception.
Great letter.
Spoken like a real person.
The judgement must be that if Bloomberg can”t get it right on a now better researched area as the drivers of climate then it probably can’t get it right in its major core area.
I will add Bloomberg to the Sydney Morning Herald as a ‘to avoid’ source of reliable information.
oldseadog says:
November 7, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Very commendable; but unfortunately I doubt if anyone with any influence at Bloomberg will ever see this.
==========================================================================
I may not have made it up the food chain but now that it’s on WUWT they might. But whether they do or not, Danny Weston doesn’t have to hide from what he sees in the mirror.
LKMiller says:
November 7, 2012 at 2:57 pm
While I agree with his sentiment, and give him a standing ovation for taking a principled stand, I cannot agree that this letter is well written. There are various words for this writing style: blotation, bloviation, or my favorite, “why say in 100 words what you can say in 1000.”
Danny should have made his point much more succinctly, easily enough done, then would have been much sharper and had a chance of being read.
===============
I think “that” would have sharpened up your “then”, succinctly.
Well done that man. Not everyone has such principles. I’m going to share the story on facebook. If everyone does there is more chance of the ‘high heid yins’ (as we say in Scotland) becoming aware of it.
Yet another TYPO: “I may not have made it up the food chain”
Should be: “It may not have made it up the food chain”
(Sigh)
clipe says:
November 7, 2012 at 5:13 pm
“This was not a “letter to the editor” Mr. Bloviator.”
&
“why say in 100 words what you can say in 1000.”
Sarcasm?
Fail.”
Thin-skinned much? I gave him a standing O for his principles, and a C- for tripping over the message.
Lighten up, we have much bigger problems than this. Who is John Galt?
Please forgive me. Somebody had to do it! 🙂
Good man. BBW has really sunk down, as PopScience has done.
WTF are these journalists/propagandists thinking about their readers?
Hats off to a fellow man that can stand up to his principles. Bravo. 🙂
“why say in 100 words what you can say in 1000.”
Never articulate a multi-syllable declaration when a diminutive utterance would be sufficient.
Danny, that was some very polite venting. Your could have been more concise but then it would not have been as therapeutic. Good call.
We can argue forever with warmists about climate and not get very far. We need to think up new ways of confronting them. I will suggest, as I have done before, having a list of warmist individuals and organisations, ranked in descending order of the outrageousness of their views, and add Bloomberg to that list. Rerank the list and publish it every week.
Why shouldn’t this be done? DeSmog have a “Denier Database”. Let’s have a Warmist Database. The people in it can safely be ignored. If they ask nicely and start doing real science, they can be removed. Why don’t we do this?
The closest I ever came to this was taking an interview with a company that had jerked me around for months, only to tell the folks there that I took the interview just to find out who had been jerking me around.
“…while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.”
Congratulations on your integrity Danny. I hope there are employers who will appreciate you.
This might take editing for length, and then appear in the Wall Street Journal.
they won’t read past “I write regarding my cancellation of attendance at the ‘Bloomberg Assessment Test’ “
the bloomberg article, “NY Mayor Bloomberg Endorses Obama in Presidential Race” was published on 1 Nov.
i go to bloomberg every single day to check on their latest CAGW propagands and they kept the story at the top of the homepage for the entire week up to the election. never seen a story held like that before. of course u could say well, it’s bloomberg’s publication, so it’s not too surprising.
however, on 1 Nov, reuters point carbon published “NY mayor cites climate stance in endorsing Obama ” at the top of their homepage, and it stayed right there for the entire week as well.
what a coincidence? not that i had a horse in your presidential race.
Nicely said, albeit a tad lengthy. Very ethical too, as it can be real hard to say no to the chance of a good job at a widely (though not universally) respected, high profile employer.
Perhaps this is hopelessly naive, but there is an alternative approach, and that is to join Bloomberg’s with the intention of trying to educate and challenge its views. People with fixed dumb views need to be challenged and, arguably, the best way is internally. Personally, I like media which offers a diversity of views, not those which merely affirm my pre-existing prejudices. How else can you learn and grow?
I cancelled my subscription to BBW because of their juvenile tabloid journalism.
Inspiring, even though your objection will probably be ignored by those dim propagandists. Illegitimum non carborundum.
Ingvar;
“Even
meI as a Swede can appreciate the language.” To get that right, eliminate the intervening phrases and clauses and directly match subject and verb. Would you say, “me can appreciate”?😉
I would probably do that, not necessarily regarding climate though.. 😉
We constantly had high profile companies giving talks/presentations coming to our uni who wanted to attract students’ applications.
There were 1-2 companies which are very tempting as employers in the public perception, and so I researched them; but more crucially, I already knew how they work through involvement with them through their paperwork I had to deal with in my part-time job at the time.
There are many people who manage to achieve really good degrees (and good jobs on that basis), but who literally don’t know what they are doing, they get things wrong you wouldn’t do in the first semester, even based on common sense alone. This is a clear failure of education/examination standards. (We are talking about the UK here.)
And after I had so much displeasure fixing nonsense coming out of highly paid people, I didn’t even apply there anymore – because I cannot fake agreement to idiocy every day, just to go along… I actually like doing what I have to do, or else work is hell. Overlooking incompetence as a leading principle in a high profile company is a bit like pretending the emperor has clothes on…
At the time, there were even 1-2 awkward decisions of that company’s particular department I was interested in that got their own media attention for being, well, slightly detached from reality… so it’s not just me being a wise-cracking know-it-all.
So there you have it, Homer Simpsons was right when he said: “Not being able to do something is not a reason to not do it anyway .” 😛
So in principle, I am living by my convictions…
“During my time working in the city previously, my favourite aspect of the work was that I could always appeal to the bottom line. The ‘can do’ culture meant that rational changes and risks would be given the nod if they would result in a likely improvement. It was the complete opposite to the ossified bureaucratic culture I’d experienced working in the public sector.”
Well said – leaves me wondering, has Danny experience with the loony public service of the Julia Gillard Green-Left government in Australia?