Climate politics shifting: NYC Mayor Bloomberg cites climate change a factor in US elections

“President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans…  And heal the planet” – Mitt Romney

Sandy – and climate change – is having a profound impact on American politics and the Presidential election in surprising ways:

In a surprise announcement, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Thursday that Hurricane Sandy had reshaped his thinking about the presidential campaign and that as a result he was endorsing President Obama. 

Mr. Bloomberg, a political independent in his third term leading New York City, has been sharply critical of both Mr. Obama, a Democrat, and Mitt Romney, the president’s Republican rival, saying that both men have failed to candidly confront the problems afflicting the nation. But he said he had decided over the past several days that Mr. Obama was the best candidate to tackle the global climate change that the mayor believes contributed to the violent storm, which took the lives of at least 38 New Yorkers and caused billions of dollars in damage. 

“The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast — in lost lives, lost homes and lost business — brought the stakes of next Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief,” Mr. Bloomberg wrote in an editorial for Bloomberg View. 

“Our climate is changing,” he wrote. “And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it may be — given the devastation it is wreaking — should be enough to compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”

Perhaps this is the break-through moment for climate politics in the US: when a respected, conservative leaning politician (Bloomberg is an independent with progressive views on a range of issues) helps dismantle the logjam stifling acknowledgement that climate change is central to the political discussion, and not a fringe concern.

The conservative politicians, think tanks, one particular global media corporation and journalists who have spent decades denying the reality are not merely looking out of touch with reality – it is now clear giving credence to their views was both foolish and dangerous.

The price of denial is writ large across Caribbean nations such as Haiti (60 dead) and the North East of the United States where the death toll has reached over 80.

The world has listened to these fanatics and merchants of unreality for too long.

But sadly it has taken two hurricanes in the United States – and far too many dead and billions in damage – to illustrate the folly of denial.

Twice climate extremes have destroyed the ambitions of conservatives in the US to hold or gain the Presidency. And twice they have chosen to ignore the lessons.

Hurricane Katrina destroyed the Presidency of George W. Bush, who was shown to be grossly incompetent. Recall it was Bush who sought to delay action on climate and ushered in the Republican war on science.

But denial among the GOP and conservatives only increased in intensity.

Now hurricane Sandy may have shifted the politics of climate change, most likely ensured a second term for Obama and discredited the sceptic movement in the eyes of most of the public.

The response of the millions who experienced the devastation of Sandy to the arguments of the sceptics will be personal and visceral:

“You’re a climate sceptic? Well I’m from New York – f*ck you”

Nor will the world forget the foolish utterances and names of those who denied climate change. The evidence of their stupidity and ideological zealotry is voluminous.

Romeny’s mocking of the issue of at the recent RNC will not merely haunt his failed bid for the Presidency: it will haunt conservatives in the US for decades.

It will haunt News Corporation for decades, who will be seen as one of the principle agents of denial.

And it will haunt conservative politicians in Australia, who fell under the siren song of the sceptic movement.

But it was bound to happen: reality was always going to catch up in the form of surging flood waters, withered crops and smashed and storm ravaged cities.

There will be an accounting and a reckoning, of that there can be little doubt.

Tagged , , , ,

64 thoughts on “Climate politics shifting: NYC Mayor Bloomberg cites climate change a factor in US elections

  1. Eric Worrall says:

    if only they had switched to low energy lightbulbs, none of this would have happened.

    I wish you guys could see how heartless you are being, exploiting people’s misery to further your agenda.

    The climate issue might well get Obama over the hump, and back into the white house – sudden tragedies and a whole heap of lies can do this. But longer term the US hurricane drought looks set to continue. And your reputations will end up even more tarnished by your actions now.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      If only we had elected politicians with the courage to tackle the issue. The ordinary individual is blameless, no one person can change the world.

      To call to attention an issue as vital as climate change is not exploitation: it is prudent risk management. It is a public health issue; it is an economic issue; and it is a national security issue. Climate change is just as – if not more so – vital a concern as terrorism.

      When politicians of the statue of Bloomberg (and many others) start signalling to the electorate that climate change is an important issue we can see how quickly climate sceptics will devolve to the status of a fringe group of cranks.

      I admit to having an agenda: the see the reduction in human suffering and devastation.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I agree that this is what you believe. I think at heart you are good people. But a global emergency is a moral slippery slope – what crime cannot be justified in the name of saving the planet? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

        And in the short term at least, rising energy bills due to green policies are having a devastating impact on some people’s lives. If it is all for nothing, you guys will be remembered as the villains.

  2. uknowispeaksense says:

    “I wish you guys could see how heartless you are being, exploiting people’s misery to further your agenda.”

    Hmmm, what was it you said about the Pakistan floods happening three times in a row? Oh, that’s right. You said, “Shit happens!”
    https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/andrew-bolt-china-has-zero-intention-of-setting-up-carbon-tax-sorry-andrew-they-are/#comment-17370

    Before you go trying to take some morally superior position you heartless arsehole, try examining your own morals first.

  3. john byatt says:

    eric ” The road to hell is paved with good intentions.’

    hell ? do not believe in hell eric

    what sort of a f/wit god would send people to hell for good intentions.

    weird religion you follow

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I’m also an atheist John – I was using this expression as a metaphor.

      Interestingly, your faith system has similar elements of sin and redemption to Christianity – my personal theory as to why it is so popular is that it fills the hole left in the lives of people who had a religious upbringing, but lost their faith. But this is only a bit of personal speculation.

      • john byatt says:

        Eric, sorry but there is a strong relationship with fundamental christianity and denial of climate change

        your personal theory is crap same as your metaphor

      • john byatt says:

        “my personal theory as to why it is so popular is that it fills the hole left in the lives of people who had a religious upbringing but lost their faith”

        that would seem to be the view of someone who is religious.

        something that Pell would say.

        people who dump religious claptrap are not left with a hole in their lives,

        you are either theist or agnostic, not an atheist

        • Eric Worrall says:

          No I’m an atheist, and have been all my life. I was fortunate to have parents who didn’t want to fill my head with religious nonsense. I know quite a bit about religion – I had a couple of aunties who tried to convert me to their Jehova Witness faith, despite my parent’s prohibition. But I never found their message convincing – particularly when they tried to tell me evolution was a myth (I had already read a lot of science books on Darwin’s theories, genetics, and natural selection by this time).

          I have known people who have suffered the personal devastation of losing their faith in the god delusion. At least two of them have embraced climate alarmism with a fervour comparable to their former faith in God, which is the basis of my personal speculation about this.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          sample size and extrapolation. 

          ________________________________

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I already admitted it was personal speculation, not peer reviewed science.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Yes and it is symptomatic of your approach to peer reviewed science.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You’re just saying that because I got you guys on the accelerated SLR crap.

          If Briffa is right, and the MWP saw 200 years of arctic summers similar in temperature to the late 20th century, but there was no large SLR, then RIP any SLR theory which depends on arctic melting.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Sorry, I must have missed your paper where you “got you guys”. I’m curious though Eric, what caused the MWP?

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Do I have to explain to you the difference between floating ice and land ice? I am also curious, did you read the paper or just the abstract?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          At least stop contradicting each other – John suggested the Arctic warming / melting of Greenland icecap was the basis of theories that the end of this century would experience substantial SLR.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Answer the question. Did you read the paper or just the abstract?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Just the abstract – at $25 / peek, its a little more than I want to pay to read the full paper. But I’ve already said this several times.

          The abstract seems clear enough:- The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century.

          Or are you trying to tell me the paper contradicts the abstract?

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          The paywall argument is old and intellectually lazy. Abstracts never give the complete story. The devil is in the detail Eric. I make a point of subscribing to many different journals and paying for articles on which I wish to make informed comment. Perhaps informed comment is not your primary interest.

          “Grudd (2008) calibrated the density series using linear regression against local instrumental summer temperature observations and produced a reconstruction in which the medieval period (c. 900–1100 ce) appears considerably warmer (approximately 1°C for an April–August season) than the average of the 20th century, at odds with other previously published reconstructions where the warmth of the medieval and 20th century eras are inferred to be similar.”

          “The new chronologies presented here provide mutually consistent evidence, contradicting a previously published conclusion (Grudd, 2008), that medieval summers (between 900 and 1100 ce) were much warmer than those in the 20th century.”

          “It was found in the Torneträsk region of Sweden that there were systematic differences in the density measurements from different analytical procedures and laboratory conditions and that an RCS chronology created from a simple combination of these MXD data contained systematic bias.”

          “Finally we re-iterate that the use of two-RCS-curve processing may reduce the total amplitude of the chronology series and perhaps reduce the magnitude of high relative tree growth in the medieval and modern eras”

          So, let me sum this up for you. In this single small region in Sweden, a dataset of tree rings had been analysed and the results indicated that temperatures in the MWP were 1 degree warmer than the late 20th century. Using this new technique, the researchers were able to revise the temperature series DOWN. They acknowledge that the technique may still exaggerate the magnitude of warm periods.

          You might be interested to know that Mann isn’t mentioned at all anywhere in the paper as they were not reanalysing his datasets so to claim this somehow negates Mann’s work is incorrect. Personally, i can’t wait until this new technique is applied to other dendrochronologies where the MWP isn’t found to be as warm as the last century. It might disappear completely.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          It obviously revises down Grudd (2008), but it is of interest because it is an admission by Briffa that the MWP is back.

          I like your optimism that you can make the MWP go away, but I think you’ll be disappointed.

          I wonder when Mann will revise his hockey stick?

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          You are truly idiotic. How about you take up John’s advice and email Briffa? Ask him if his work negates Mann’s? I know I’m going to.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Please do. Let me know what he says.

          It will tell us if he is still under pressure to tell us a nice tidy story.

          http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0938018124.txt

          Briffa speaking:-

          I know there is pressure to present a
          >nice tidy story
          as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
          >years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite
          >so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
          >those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
          >unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
          >not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
          > For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
          >warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
          >is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
          >was probably matched about 1000 years ago.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          I see, so you’ll believe him if he supports your misinterpretation of his paper but he’ll be lying if he doesn’t? I know that’s the way you people roll but its a pleasant change to actually see you admit it. I actually admire the amount of wilful ignorance you people have to employ to maintain your idealogically inferior position. You might call yourself an atheist but you act just like a creatard.

      • john byatt says:

        Eric ”

        I have known people who have suffered the personal devastation of losing their faith in the god delusion ‘

        An I know hundreds of people that have celebrated their loss of faith

        yep, that is fact.

        anecdotal evidence is crap,

      • john byatt says:

        Eric never lets facts influence his opinion, the MWP did not disappear with Mann, who told you that crap

  4. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    November 2, 2012 at 4:10 am
    You’re just saying that because I got you guys on the accelerated SLR crap.

    If Briffa is right, and the MWP saw 200 years of arctic summers similar in temperature to the late 20th century, but there was no large SLR, then RIP any SLR theory which depends on arctic melting.

    you have read the paper eric, what was the actual temp anomaly?

    Late twentieth century could be anywhere from 1970 or so

    just have a quick read through the paper

    answers?

    ,

  5. louploup2 says:

    I really don’t understand why Eric, who is one of the most dedicated intentionally ignorant idiots I have ever seen on the blogs, keeps posting here. Eric–why?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I enjoy poking holes in your dogma. And the failure of your movement is kind of important to me – I don’t want my quality of life damaged because of a lie.

      I’m hardly going to have the same effect on public opinion as say Lord Monckton did when he almost singlehandedly convinced the US Republican party that climate alarmism was a cover for communism, but I feel its important to do my bit.

      Why do you post loupy?

      • uknowispeaksense says:

        Speak a little bit of a dead language to those morons and you could convince them that the best way to ingest food is by rubbing it on their backsides. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Its a mistake to think people who hold different views are morons – they just believe different things, thats all.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Flatearthers, young earth creationists, moon landing conspiracy theorists hold different views to me. They are morons. Republicans……

      • john byatt says:

        And some nut Dr in Noosa convinced the LNP to drop climate science from QLD schools on the basis of a nonsense experiment with a fish box and glad wrap

      • louploup2 says:

        I post because it’s my ethic to speak out for rational decision making in the face of the huge natural resource crises we face, largely of our own creation. That’s on top of humans’ strong inherent difficulty making rational decisions–we are very emotion and greed driven.

        When I see morons like you post, it causes a twitch in my typing fingers to counter your stupidity in the hopes, initially, that maybe you have the sense to apply some logic to the situation when presented with the best available data and analyses, and ultimately, after it becomes clear that you are not, that other readers can learn from the exchange.

        • eworrall1 says:

          What resource shortages? Shale has and tar sands have extended the fossil fuel boom. When they run out, there’s methane clathrates, coal oil, deep sea coal deposits, nuclear shaped charges to open access to deep mineral deposits, energy from Thorium…

          There is no way resources we know about will run out for centuries to come. After that, it’s up to the super science of our distant descendants to solve future resource problems.

      • louploup2 says:

        p.s. The quality of your life will indeed be seriously damaged because of lies, but none of them originate in the scientific community. You are truly an idiot.

      • louploup2 says:

        Eric blathers “What resource shortages?” The only energy source you mention that has any chance of being usable for more than few more decades is thorium, and that’s questionable. More research for you I will not do. Look up EROI–I think I’ve mentioned it to you before, but undoubtedly you didn’t, forgot, or didn’t understand it. You might have some innate intelligence (you sort of know how to string a sentence together) but it is clearly wasted in your being. My condolences to you and your loved ones.

        • eworrall1 says:

          Nonsense – there are centuries worth of coal still in the ground. And Thorium works, it’s just that fossil fuels and Uranium are still so abundant it’s simply not worth building a new type of reactor.

      • louploup2 says:

        “Why do you post loupy?” Good question. Bye bye Eric the Orc; I’m outa here while you’re around. Utter and unamusing waste of time.

    • john byatt says:

      He probably wakes up and forgot he was here the day before

      from his repititions even after things have been explained to him I suspect a short term memory problem
      he thinks I am insulting him but I am fair dinkum

  6. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    November 2, 2012 at 6:17 am
    Just the abstract – at $25 / peek, its a little more than I want to pay to read the full paper. But I’ve already said this several times.

    The abstract seems clear enough:- The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century.

    Or are you trying to tell me the paper contradicts the abstract?

    but we have already accepted the TRW data eric this just confirms it, consistent with late 20th century is not new information

    As posted before the late twentieth century can be 1960, without knowing the anomaly you in effect can make no other claim than the temp was similar to 1960.
    but you do not even know what the anomaly was.

    oh no I just realised that we will have to go through this again tomorrow

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Briffa claims that the MWP arctic temperatures were as warm as late 20th century temperatures, and stayed that warm for 200 years.

      This means if current temperatures were capable of producing substantial arctic melting (e.g. Greenland), leading to metres of sea level rise, over the next century, this would already have happened during the MWP.

      Therefore a sustained period of substantially higher temperatures is required to even potentially realise this possibility.

  7. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    November 2, 2012 at 6:33 am
    Its a mistake to think people who hold different views are morons – they just believe different things, thats all.

    eric it is not your different view that makes you look like a moron, it is the total lack of logic, denial of every single aspect of the science from acidification of the oceans is not a problem , the death spiral of the arctic is a fluke sea level is not rising despite the scientific evidence,
    it is not warming despite the empirical data,
    that there are no positive feedbacks

    this is as I said before a creationist’s view of our planet

  8. john byatt says:

    here eric this will cost you nothing

    email Biffra and ask him what the anomaly in the area he studied was, not that it makes any difference as it was not a complete NH study nor involved the arctic above the tree line

    k.briffa@uea.ac.uk

    you can ask him all those questions and post his reply here

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: