http://media.ford.com/images/10031/4Qfinancial_release09.pdf
This is for the many of you who have shared a class with me over the past several years where we've had some lively discussions about Ford and the automobile industry: OMG! If you had told me 10 years ago that Toyota would be having multi-year negative profitability and simultaneous disastrous quality problems in 2010, I would have responded that that is not possible.
If, at that same time, you had told me that Ford had "survived" to 2010 without being "bought" by Toyota (or some other company) or going out of business, I would have responded that that is not possible.
It would appear that I'm living in an alternative universe because Ford's 2009 Annual Profit Report came out today and Ford's Full Year Net Income was: $2.7 Billion! (Today's press release is attached). That is Ford's first annual net profit since 2005!
When Bill Ford had the brilliance and humility to hire Alan Mulally (as CEO) from Boeing in 2006, I thought it was too late. When Mulally mortgaged the entire company (including the "Logo"!) a few months later for the tidy sum of $26 Billion, I thought it was a desperate act!
Ford increased its market share in 2009 after watching it slide for 10 years.
Ford is building vehicles that people want to buy: the 2010 Fusion Hybrid and Ford Transit Connect were named North American Car and Truck of the Year, respectively. The Ford Fusion was named Motor Trend's 2010 Car of the Year.
Mulally places the highest priority on communicating with employees and customers (listening to the customer - what a concept!).
Toyota took 60 years to get to a world market share of 10%. Toyota decided in 2002 to strive for a 15% world market share which would put them at # 1 in total units produced. In 8 years, they have grown too fast and wasted 60 years of progress.
At the end of the worst recession since WW II, Ford has made a comeback worthy of its iconic history!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Toyota: Two Recalls and Now a Manufacturing/Sales Suspension
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/business/27toyota.html?emc=eta1
So, we were premature with our last post! This is unprecedented! Unless we go back to the 1982 Tylenol recall which J & J initiated because lives were lost, even though they didn't know what was causing those deaths. Here, Toyota is stopping everything even though they don't know what is causing the potentially life threatening situation. What would you do?
They have essentially stopped the production and sale of 65% of the Toyotas made here. We are unsure what they plan to do about the rest of the world.
We are mindful of the Barclays Capital observation that the Toyota gas pedal problem could reveal a danger of global parts outsourcing: "Toyota is known for using the same parts design across multiple cars and factories and countries which everyone is trying to emulate because it gives you economies of scale. What this shows is one of the risks of that strategy. When something goes wrong, instead of a couple-of-hundred-thousand-part recall you have a multiple-million-part recall."
Again, we are most hopeful that issue is resolved soon.
So, we were premature with our last post! This is unprecedented! Unless we go back to the 1982 Tylenol recall which J & J initiated because lives were lost, even though they didn't know what was causing those deaths. Here, Toyota is stopping everything even though they don't know what is causing the potentially life threatening situation. What would you do?
They have essentially stopped the production and sale of 65% of the Toyotas made here. We are unsure what they plan to do about the rest of the world.
We are mindful of the Barclays Capital observation that the Toyota gas pedal problem could reveal a danger of global parts outsourcing: "Toyota is known for using the same parts design across multiple cars and factories and countries which everyone is trying to emulate because it gives you economies of scale. What this shows is one of the risks of that strategy. When something goes wrong, instead of a couple-of-hundred-thousand-part recall you have a multiple-million-part recall."
Again, we are most hopeful that issue is resolved soon.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Toyota 2010: Two Recalls in Two Months
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2010-01-21-toyota-recall-gas-pedal_N.htm?POE=click-refer
We quote from the NY Times 10/3/09: "Akio Toyoda, president of the world's biggest automaker, might as well have thrown himself on the ground in a tearful kowtow."
"From grief over a fatal crash linked to Toyota floor mats to regrets over the company's forecast for a second consecutive annual loss, the executive offered a litany of apologies to astonished reporters gathered for a briefing Friday at the Japan National Press Club."
"Toyota was shamefully unprepared for the global economic crisis and is now a step away from 'capitulation to irrelevance or death,' said Mr. Toyoda, the grandson of the carmaker's founder. The company, he added, is 'grasping for salvation'."
Toyoda was borrowing from Jim Collins' new book "How the Mighty Fall" which is a long awaited sequel to Collins' world renowned "Good to Great". Collins' original book was the result of an extensive study by he and his very high powered team on how a CEO takes an otherwise average company and makes it great. "How the Mighty Fall" takes the other side of that approach and asks how companies fail, concluding that those "failures" occur in "stages" (two of which Toyoda was referring to). While we don't plan to go into those stages here, it will suffice to say that the first 4 stages of decline are reversible. The last stage (capitulation to irrelevance and death) is not.
Further quoting from Collins' new book, Toyoda said his company had gotten too arrogant on "hubris born of success" and the "undisciplined pursuit of more."
All of this was said last October at the announcement of a recall of 4.2 million Toyota vehicles (the largest in its history). That recall was prompted by a crash that killed four people last August near San Diego. Dealers began shortening or replacing gas pedals and installing brake-override systems (in addition to removing or changing floor mats) because of accelerator pedals that got stuck causing vehicles to speed up unintentionally.
Now, Toyota yesterday announced a SECOND RECALL which covers 2.3 million cars and trucks from the 2005 to 2010 model years and is SEPARATE FROM the 10/09 recall. About 1.7 million vehicles are included in both recalls, including its best-selling model, the Camry.
The first recall was to fix a design flaw that could cause the gas pedal to become trapped under the floor mat. This second recall was announced this week on the heels of an ABC News televised report (click on the link in the article attached) that at least 60 crashes have occurred since that time with Toyotas that had floor mats removed. In the most dramatic incident, on the day after Christmas, four people died in Southlake, Texas when a 2008 Toyota sped off the road, thru a fence and landed upside down in a pond. The car's "floor mats" were found in the trunk of the car where the owners had put them as a part of the first recall.
It would appear that "unintended acceleration" in these vehicles is not necessarily caused by floor mats. Second, at least in some of the reported cases, hitting the brakes won't stop the car.
What is very clear here is that Toyota did not get it right when it first recalled its cars. So, there are now major quality issues. In addition, there would appear to be major engineering and manufacturing issues: we're recalling cars but we don't know what to do.
Beyond that, Toyota has been cited by prestigious strategic thinkers as a model for international business growth. Sadly, Toyota grew too fast. Catching (and passing) GM in total units produced worldwide destroyed quality. Truly, "quantity" trumped "quality".
It will be interesting to see where Toyota goes from here.
We quote from the NY Times 10/3/09: "Akio Toyoda, president of the world's biggest automaker, might as well have thrown himself on the ground in a tearful kowtow."
"From grief over a fatal crash linked to Toyota floor mats to regrets over the company's forecast for a second consecutive annual loss, the executive offered a litany of apologies to astonished reporters gathered for a briefing Friday at the Japan National Press Club."
"Toyota was shamefully unprepared for the global economic crisis and is now a step away from 'capitulation to irrelevance or death,' said Mr. Toyoda, the grandson of the carmaker's founder. The company, he added, is 'grasping for salvation'."
Toyoda was borrowing from Jim Collins' new book "How the Mighty Fall" which is a long awaited sequel to Collins' world renowned "Good to Great". Collins' original book was the result of an extensive study by he and his very high powered team on how a CEO takes an otherwise average company and makes it great. "How the Mighty Fall" takes the other side of that approach and asks how companies fail, concluding that those "failures" occur in "stages" (two of which Toyoda was referring to). While we don't plan to go into those stages here, it will suffice to say that the first 4 stages of decline are reversible. The last stage (capitulation to irrelevance and death) is not.
Further quoting from Collins' new book, Toyoda said his company had gotten too arrogant on "hubris born of success" and the "undisciplined pursuit of more."
All of this was said last October at the announcement of a recall of 4.2 million Toyota vehicles (the largest in its history). That recall was prompted by a crash that killed four people last August near San Diego. Dealers began shortening or replacing gas pedals and installing brake-override systems (in addition to removing or changing floor mats) because of accelerator pedals that got stuck causing vehicles to speed up unintentionally.
Now, Toyota yesterday announced a SECOND RECALL which covers 2.3 million cars and trucks from the 2005 to 2010 model years and is SEPARATE FROM the 10/09 recall. About 1.7 million vehicles are included in both recalls, including its best-selling model, the Camry.
The first recall was to fix a design flaw that could cause the gas pedal to become trapped under the floor mat. This second recall was announced this week on the heels of an ABC News televised report (click on the link in the article attached) that at least 60 crashes have occurred since that time with Toyotas that had floor mats removed. In the most dramatic incident, on the day after Christmas, four people died in Southlake, Texas when a 2008 Toyota sped off the road, thru a fence and landed upside down in a pond. The car's "floor mats" were found in the trunk of the car where the owners had put them as a part of the first recall.
It would appear that "unintended acceleration" in these vehicles is not necessarily caused by floor mats. Second, at least in some of the reported cases, hitting the brakes won't stop the car.
What is very clear here is that Toyota did not get it right when it first recalled its cars. So, there are now major quality issues. In addition, there would appear to be major engineering and manufacturing issues: we're recalling cars but we don't know what to do.
Beyond that, Toyota has been cited by prestigious strategic thinkers as a model for international business growth. Sadly, Toyota grew too fast. Catching (and passing) GM in total units produced worldwide destroyed quality. Truly, "quantity" trumped "quality".
It will be interesting to see where Toyota goes from here.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
J & J Stumbles
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703657604575004981703096228-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwNzExNDcyWj.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/business/18drug.html?emc=eta1
The role model at the Harvard Business School (and many other educational institutions) for crisis management is how Johnson & Johnson handled the tragedy surrounding Tylenol in 1982. Now, almost 30 years later, J & J is embarrassed at how it has mishandled a much less serious product problem - and, once again, its Tylenol!
30 years ago seven people died from cyanide poisoning after taking Tylenol for headaches. Without knowing what was causing the deaths, J & J management immediately recalled all Tylenol from all outlets in the U.S. This cost in excess of a billion dollars. Management didn't care. What they cared about was the customer.
While initially, after the problem was diagnosed (a person or persons were injecting the pills with cyanide), Tylenol lost market share when it returned to store shelves, that did not last long. Tylenol roared back to a market share larger than it had before! For those of us who lived thru that time, J & J's action created great admiration and loyalty for the product.
Today's Tylenol issue seems to be associated with a "smell" problem. The "stalling" that went on with recalling/investigating the problem was serious enough that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has had to intervene. While the problem first surfaced in 2008, there was no complete investigation or report to the FDA until a year later.
So much for "role models."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/business/18drug.html?emc=eta1
The role model at the Harvard Business School (and many other educational institutions) for crisis management is how Johnson & Johnson handled the tragedy surrounding Tylenol in 1982. Now, almost 30 years later, J & J is embarrassed at how it has mishandled a much less serious product problem - and, once again, its Tylenol!
30 years ago seven people died from cyanide poisoning after taking Tylenol for headaches. Without knowing what was causing the deaths, J & J management immediately recalled all Tylenol from all outlets in the U.S. This cost in excess of a billion dollars. Management didn't care. What they cared about was the customer.
While initially, after the problem was diagnosed (a person or persons were injecting the pills with cyanide), Tylenol lost market share when it returned to store shelves, that did not last long. Tylenol roared back to a market share larger than it had before! For those of us who lived thru that time, J & J's action created great admiration and loyalty for the product.
Today's Tylenol issue seems to be associated with a "smell" problem. The "stalling" that went on with recalling/investigating the problem was serious enough that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has had to intervene. While the problem first surfaced in 2008, there was no complete investigation or report to the FDA until a year later.
So much for "role models."
China Too
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/opinion/20friedman.html?emc=eta1
So, we're reading Thomas L. Friedman because we like to keep up with the only multiple Pulitzer Prize winner who could explain the Middle East and still make sense on other subjects as well, and, we discover that Friedman wrote last week a defense of the Chinese economy that goes something like this: "I'd be wary of the argument that China's economy today is just one big short-inviting bubble, a la Dubai."
Just as we were about to dispute his overly optimistic interpretation of China's real estate bubble and overall economy, we get: "Is China an Enron? (Part 2)". This week's version of Enron China gives Friedman an opportunity to reevaluate "shorting" China. Why? The Google situation.
Our "title" today is a take off on Friedman's "China 2" so that we might emphasize that there is the "other China" (China Too) that Friedman tended to forget last week as he extolled the economic miracle that continues. "Authoritarian Capitalism" was a catchy phrase prior to the worldwide financial crisis because China was doing well by allowing competition where it benefited the authorities but stopping short of full "freedoms". China was the model for "Authoritarian Capitalism" because it had an economy that grew dramatically while supplying cheap products to the world. Russia too, but less so because nobody wanted Russia's products and all Russia had was "oil".
With the Google situation, Friedman was reminded that freedom of information is part of the capitalistic experience because it is part of the competitive experience.
S0: "If China forces out Google, I'd like to short the Chinese Communist Party." Why? Because (never start a sentence with "because"!) Chinese companies today are both more backward and more advanced than most Americans realize. According to Friedman, "There are actually two Chinese economies today. There is the Communist Party and its affiliates; let's call them Command China. These are the very traditional state-owned enterprises. Alongside them, there is a second China, largely concentrated in coastal cities like Shanghai and Hong Kong. This is a highly entrepreneurial sector that has developed sophisticated techniques to generate and participate in diverse, high-value flows of business knowledge." Friedman calls this "Network China."
Friedman argues that "... Command China, in its efforts to suppress, curtail and channel knowledge flows into politically acceptable domains that will indefinitely sustain the control of the Communist Party - i.e., censoring Google - is increasingly at odds with Network China, which is thriving by participating in global knowledge flows. That is what the war over Google is really about: it is a proxy and a symbol for whether the Chinese will be able to freely search and connect wherever their imaginations and creative impulses take them ..."
Friedman concludes that Command China, which wants to censor Google, will have its way. That means Network China, which thrives on Google, won't be able to sustain its very high level of competitive effectiveness. Friedman, therefore would "short" the Communist party.
This moves Friedman toward his namesake, George Friedman, whose long awaited book published in 2009 - "The Next 100 Years" - sees China falling back to where it was in 1937 (perhaps as soon as 2020).
We think Thomas L. Friedman's "second thoughts" are on the same level as the very high quality definition of "Globalization" he gave all of us as the 21st century began. This time he's defining economic freedom.
So, we're reading Thomas L. Friedman because we like to keep up with the only multiple Pulitzer Prize winner who could explain the Middle East and still make sense on other subjects as well, and, we discover that Friedman wrote last week a defense of the Chinese economy that goes something like this: "I'd be wary of the argument that China's economy today is just one big short-inviting bubble, a la Dubai."
Just as we were about to dispute his overly optimistic interpretation of China's real estate bubble and overall economy, we get: "Is China an Enron? (Part 2)". This week's version of Enron China gives Friedman an opportunity to reevaluate "shorting" China. Why? The Google situation.
Our "title" today is a take off on Friedman's "China 2" so that we might emphasize that there is the "other China" (China Too) that Friedman tended to forget last week as he extolled the economic miracle that continues. "Authoritarian Capitalism" was a catchy phrase prior to the worldwide financial crisis because China was doing well by allowing competition where it benefited the authorities but stopping short of full "freedoms". China was the model for "Authoritarian Capitalism" because it had an economy that grew dramatically while supplying cheap products to the world. Russia too, but less so because nobody wanted Russia's products and all Russia had was "oil".
With the Google situation, Friedman was reminded that freedom of information is part of the capitalistic experience because it is part of the competitive experience.
S0: "If China forces out Google, I'd like to short the Chinese Communist Party." Why? Because (never start a sentence with "because"!) Chinese companies today are both more backward and more advanced than most Americans realize. According to Friedman, "There are actually two Chinese economies today. There is the Communist Party and its affiliates; let's call them Command China. These are the very traditional state-owned enterprises. Alongside them, there is a second China, largely concentrated in coastal cities like Shanghai and Hong Kong. This is a highly entrepreneurial sector that has developed sophisticated techniques to generate and participate in diverse, high-value flows of business knowledge." Friedman calls this "Network China."
Friedman argues that "... Command China, in its efforts to suppress, curtail and channel knowledge flows into politically acceptable domains that will indefinitely sustain the control of the Communist Party - i.e., censoring Google - is increasingly at odds with Network China, which is thriving by participating in global knowledge flows. That is what the war over Google is really about: it is a proxy and a symbol for whether the Chinese will be able to freely search and connect wherever their imaginations and creative impulses take them ..."
Friedman concludes that Command China, which wants to censor Google, will have its way. That means Network China, which thrives on Google, won't be able to sustain its very high level of competitive effectiveness. Friedman, therefore would "short" the Communist party.
This moves Friedman toward his namesake, George Friedman, whose long awaited book published in 2009 - "The Next 100 Years" - sees China falling back to where it was in 1937 (perhaps as soon as 2020).
We think Thomas L. Friedman's "second thoughts" are on the same level as the very high quality definition of "Globalization" he gave all of us as the 21st century began. This time he's defining economic freedom.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Politics of Economics
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/opinion/18krugman.html?emc=eta1
While we continue to search for a clear picture of the polar bear's future, I want to salute those who commented on that post because they elevated the debate to some very high level thoughts. I would also like to thank those who "missed" our posts for their concern and we want to point out that some semesters are busier than others as we get them started but we're back now.
Krugman's post from 1/18 (attached) corrects those of us who felt the Obama administration tried to do too much at the outset. Krugman defines our position as: Obama should have put health care to one side and focused on the economy. While we might quibble with that definition, we'll ride with it until we get to Krugman's point.
Krugman's "point" is that the administration's troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments: "The stimulus was too small; the policy toward the banks wasn't tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn't do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did - namely shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations."
Again to quote Krugman: "About the stimulus: it has surely helped. Without it, unemployment would be much higher than it is. But the administration's program clearly wasn't big enough to produce job gains in 2009."
Krugman goes on to point out that he and other economists called for a larger stimulus package in 2008 but the administration backed away from that because they didn't think it was economically necessary or politically feasible. My personal favorite here is Christina Romer (Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers) reassuring Congress that the current level of "stimulus" would keep the rising rate of unemployment from going above 8%!
I like Christina Romer but she, and the "Economic Team" were wrong, and they didn't miss by a little - they missed by a lot! This is my issue with the "dismal science": we (the editorial "we") call ourselves "economists" but we can't even get the largest issues right. We align here with James K. Galbraith (the son of a world renowned economist and holder of a chair at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas) whose observation about most of the 15,000 professional economists who did not see the credit disaster coming is that the theoretical framework that most economists teach is "fundamentally useless."
Now, to the banks. We agree that the banks have not suffered a hard line approach to what's needed to fix "finance". Again, to quote Krugman: "But the light-touch approach to the financial industry further entrenched the power of the very institutions that caused the crisis, even as it failed to revive lending: bailed out banks have been REDUCING (my caps), not increasing, their loan balances." So, of course, there are disastrous political consequences with the administration placing itself on the wrong side of popular rage over bailouts and bonuses.
Just a quick question on the re-regulation of "finance": has anybody seen new regulations and/or new oversight agencies or responsibilities of agencies?
So, now we go to health care. For those of you who have shared classes with me, you know I don't think it takes 1200 pages of health care legislation to fix the two main problems with our health care system: denial of health insurance for previously existing conditions and removal of health insurance for people who "cost too much" in health plans (or, as the insurance companies like to call that: "cessions"). The latter of those two situations occurs at the rate of 20,000 individuals per year.
Another quick question: has passing a health care bill come down to campaigning in Massachusetts for the Democratic candidate to replace Senator Kennedy? What happened to passing health care legislation because it's right!
Getting back to the question of whether the Obama administration bit off more than it could chew, I don't think Krugman has proved his point. As always, we agree with most of what he has to say, but we take the position that the Obama team took on way too much at once (inclusive of other issues as well, like Copenhagen) and was mistaken about what to do in most cases. Read Krugman and decide what you think.
While we continue to search for a clear picture of the polar bear's future, I want to salute those who commented on that post because they elevated the debate to some very high level thoughts. I would also like to thank those who "missed" our posts for their concern and we want to point out that some semesters are busier than others as we get them started but we're back now.
Krugman's post from 1/18 (attached) corrects those of us who felt the Obama administration tried to do too much at the outset. Krugman defines our position as: Obama should have put health care to one side and focused on the economy. While we might quibble with that definition, we'll ride with it until we get to Krugman's point.
Krugman's "point" is that the administration's troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments: "The stimulus was too small; the policy toward the banks wasn't tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn't do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did - namely shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations."
Again to quote Krugman: "About the stimulus: it has surely helped. Without it, unemployment would be much higher than it is. But the administration's program clearly wasn't big enough to produce job gains in 2009."
Krugman goes on to point out that he and other economists called for a larger stimulus package in 2008 but the administration backed away from that because they didn't think it was economically necessary or politically feasible. My personal favorite here is Christina Romer (Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers) reassuring Congress that the current level of "stimulus" would keep the rising rate of unemployment from going above 8%!
I like Christina Romer but she, and the "Economic Team" were wrong, and they didn't miss by a little - they missed by a lot! This is my issue with the "dismal science": we (the editorial "we") call ourselves "economists" but we can't even get the largest issues right. We align here with James K. Galbraith (the son of a world renowned economist and holder of a chair at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas) whose observation about most of the 15,000 professional economists who did not see the credit disaster coming is that the theoretical framework that most economists teach is "fundamentally useless."
Now, to the banks. We agree that the banks have not suffered a hard line approach to what's needed to fix "finance". Again, to quote Krugman: "But the light-touch approach to the financial industry further entrenched the power of the very institutions that caused the crisis, even as it failed to revive lending: bailed out banks have been REDUCING (my caps), not increasing, their loan balances." So, of course, there are disastrous political consequences with the administration placing itself on the wrong side of popular rage over bailouts and bonuses.
Just a quick question on the re-regulation of "finance": has anybody seen new regulations and/or new oversight agencies or responsibilities of agencies?
So, now we go to health care. For those of you who have shared classes with me, you know I don't think it takes 1200 pages of health care legislation to fix the two main problems with our health care system: denial of health insurance for previously existing conditions and removal of health insurance for people who "cost too much" in health plans (or, as the insurance companies like to call that: "cessions"). The latter of those two situations occurs at the rate of 20,000 individuals per year.
Another quick question: has passing a health care bill come down to campaigning in Massachusetts for the Democratic candidate to replace Senator Kennedy? What happened to passing health care legislation because it's right!
Getting back to the question of whether the Obama administration bit off more than it could chew, I don't think Krugman has proved his point. As always, we agree with most of what he has to say, but we take the position that the Obama team took on way too much at once (inclusive of other issues as well, like Copenhagen) and was mistaken about what to do in most cases. Read Krugman and decide what you think.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Polar Bears 2
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB126221385046310927-
lMyQjAxMDI5NjMyMTIzMTEzWj.html
http://charlie-hazzard.blogspot.com/2009/07/polar-bears.html
In the WSJ article we've attached, the effort to define a clear picture of the future of the polar bear is described as confused. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - as well as many polar bear biologists - says that global warming is destroying so much of the bears' icy habitat that the species could be nearly wiped out in the next 100 years. The U.S. is pushing to ban global trade in polar bears...Canada says it has "considerable concern" over polar bears' future, but it is unclear how much Arctic ice will be lost and what effect the melts will have on the wildlife that lives there. Then, there is the native Intuit tribal hunter who sees "increasing" numbers of polar bears as he hunts. What the WSJ article highlights is the "warring viewpoints" of the once tight knit community of polar bear experts as global warming focuses international attention on the issue.
In the latest salvo, the United Nations-administered organization that overseas trade in endangered species earlier this month criticized the U.S.'s proposed polar bear trade ban, noting that the proposal hadn't shown the bears to be in danger now or that stopping trade would help them if they were.
As a "service" to our followers, we have attached a "link" to our 7/6/09 post on "Polar Bears" where we, as well as George Will, were shocked to find that the U.S. Department of the Interior had declared polar bears to be a "threatened species because they might be endangered in the foreseeable future," meaning 45 years (if our "link" doesn't get you to the post, just scroll back to it). Polar bears had the distinction of being the first species whose supposed jeopardy had been ascribed to "global warming."
We're going to go with the Canadian Intuit on this one since they live on the ground with the polar bears and would be the first to scream if the bears were lessening in numbers.
If we could borrow again from our 7/6/09 post, "... for Will and many of the rest of us, there is a remembrance that, in 1975, the general consensus of scientists was that we were entering a "New Ice Age" ("Science" magazine, March 1975 reported "...the approach of a full blown 10,000 year ice age."). Will quoted Nigel Lawson as saying that "Over the past 2.5 million years, a period where the planet's climate has fluctuated substantially, remarkably few of the earth's millions of plant and animal species became extinct." We're still waiting for the "New Ice Age".
Again, if we might quote George Will quoting the NY Times ( and organization always ready to support left wing causes and the Boston Red Sox) quoting "scientists" saying the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a mere "plateau" - 11 years of temperature stability has no bearing on long term warming. According to the Times, "... a short term trend (11 years) gives ammunition to skeptics of climate change." To quote Will, "Actually, what makes skeptics skeptical is the accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change are impervious to evidence."
If we might borrow from our 12/1/09 post on "Climategate", Richard Lindzen (a meteorologist at MIT) opined that the general support for "warming" was based not so much on the quality of the data, but on the fact that there was a "little ice age" from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus, it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerge from this episode. With the advancement of the modern industrial age, CO2 has added to warming but not to any major extent. And, the "environmental models" that did not predict the "... absence of warming for the past dozen years ..." are now being modified to justify what they missed: they now predict "warming" to resume in 2009, 2013 and 2030 respectively. Perhaps we'll hear a retroactive pronouncement about 2009.
We continue to avidly support the polar bear. What we do not support is the Chicken Little science of global warming and Al Gore. Actually, Chicken Little and Al Gore, there's a combination!
lMyQjAxMDI5NjMyMTIzMTEzWj.html
http://charlie-hazzard.blogspot.com/2009/07/polar-bears.html
In the WSJ article we've attached, the effort to define a clear picture of the future of the polar bear is described as confused. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - as well as many polar bear biologists - says that global warming is destroying so much of the bears' icy habitat that the species could be nearly wiped out in the next 100 years. The U.S. is pushing to ban global trade in polar bears...Canada says it has "considerable concern" over polar bears' future, but it is unclear how much Arctic ice will be lost and what effect the melts will have on the wildlife that lives there. Then, there is the native Intuit tribal hunter who sees "increasing" numbers of polar bears as he hunts. What the WSJ article highlights is the "warring viewpoints" of the once tight knit community of polar bear experts as global warming focuses international attention on the issue.
In the latest salvo, the United Nations-administered organization that overseas trade in endangered species earlier this month criticized the U.S.'s proposed polar bear trade ban, noting that the proposal hadn't shown the bears to be in danger now or that stopping trade would help them if they were.
As a "service" to our followers, we have attached a "link" to our 7/6/09 post on "Polar Bears" where we, as well as George Will, were shocked to find that the U.S. Department of the Interior had declared polar bears to be a "threatened species because they might be endangered in the foreseeable future," meaning 45 years (if our "link" doesn't get you to the post, just scroll back to it). Polar bears had the distinction of being the first species whose supposed jeopardy had been ascribed to "global warming."
We're going to go with the Canadian Intuit on this one since they live on the ground with the polar bears and would be the first to scream if the bears were lessening in numbers.
If we could borrow again from our 7/6/09 post, "... for Will and many of the rest of us, there is a remembrance that, in 1975, the general consensus of scientists was that we were entering a "New Ice Age" ("Science" magazine, March 1975 reported "...the approach of a full blown 10,000 year ice age."). Will quoted Nigel Lawson as saying that "Over the past 2.5 million years, a period where the planet's climate has fluctuated substantially, remarkably few of the earth's millions of plant and animal species became extinct." We're still waiting for the "New Ice Age".
Again, if we might quote George Will quoting the NY Times ( and organization always ready to support left wing causes and the Boston Red Sox) quoting "scientists" saying the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a mere "plateau" - 11 years of temperature stability has no bearing on long term warming. According to the Times, "... a short term trend (11 years) gives ammunition to skeptics of climate change." To quote Will, "Actually, what makes skeptics skeptical is the accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change are impervious to evidence."
If we might borrow from our 12/1/09 post on "Climategate", Richard Lindzen (a meteorologist at MIT) opined that the general support for "warming" was based not so much on the quality of the data, but on the fact that there was a "little ice age" from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus, it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerge from this episode. With the advancement of the modern industrial age, CO2 has added to warming but not to any major extent. And, the "environmental models" that did not predict the "... absence of warming for the past dozen years ..." are now being modified to justify what they missed: they now predict "warming" to resume in 2009, 2013 and 2030 respectively. Perhaps we'll hear a retroactive pronouncement about 2009.
We continue to avidly support the polar bear. What we do not support is the Chicken Little science of global warming and Al Gore. Actually, Chicken Little and Al Gore, there's a combination!
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Climate Nonsense
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704905704574622643206570348-ljAxMTAwMDAwNTEwNDUyWj.htmlMyQ
We would like to take just a brief moment here to salute Pete DuPont for his article (attached) in today's WSJ referencing Howard Bloom's educational work as it appeared in the Journal on 12/17/09 and attached to our 12/21 post: "Climate Change: A Galactic Perspective". DuPont provides a "click on" for that article in his article.
Bottom line: we've had 20 sudden "global warmings" in our history. None had anything to do with driving low mileage vehicles. And, while the planet has done nothing but "cool" over the past 10 years (some would say 15), it is inevitable that there will be sudden global warming periods in our future (perhaps an 18 degree warm up over 20 years, for example). None of that will be caused by anything we did.
This does not preclude efforts we would support involving being responsible conservators of the planet thru the use of nuclear power, wind energy, and, eventually, effective solar power. Cutting down on pollution is just the responsible thing to do. But, those efforts don't come ahead of starving children or responsible economic growth.
It would appear that there is a general consensus that Copenhagen failed ("Green Ink: China Sank the Climate Deal" - WSJ 12/23/09) whether one is for or against the climate change agenda. Even the very developing countries that helped draft the "agreement" (and we use that term advisedly) are now criticizing it.
Howard Bloom has helped us to understand responsible climate science. His work is by far superior to all the noise surrounding climate nonsense.
We would like to take just a brief moment here to salute Pete DuPont for his article (attached) in today's WSJ referencing Howard Bloom's educational work as it appeared in the Journal on 12/17/09 and attached to our 12/21 post: "Climate Change: A Galactic Perspective". DuPont provides a "click on" for that article in his article.
Bottom line: we've had 20 sudden "global warmings" in our history. None had anything to do with driving low mileage vehicles. And, while the planet has done nothing but "cool" over the past 10 years (some would say 15), it is inevitable that there will be sudden global warming periods in our future (perhaps an 18 degree warm up over 20 years, for example). None of that will be caused by anything we did.
This does not preclude efforts we would support involving being responsible conservators of the planet thru the use of nuclear power, wind energy, and, eventually, effective solar power. Cutting down on pollution is just the responsible thing to do. But, those efforts don't come ahead of starving children or responsible economic growth.
It would appear that there is a general consensus that Copenhagen failed ("Green Ink: China Sank the Climate Deal" - WSJ 12/23/09) whether one is for or against the climate change agenda. Even the very developing countries that helped draft the "agreement" (and we use that term advisedly) are now criticizing it.
Howard Bloom has helped us to understand responsible climate science. His work is by far superior to all the noise surrounding climate nonsense.
Monday, January 4, 2010
A Zero Decade
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28krugman.html?emc=eta1
Now that we've arrived at a new decade, we have the luxury of hindsight to view what happened over the last 10 years. I am, once again, happy to sign on with Paul Krugman for his perspective on the economic aspects of what brought us here. His take on it is the "Big Zero". It was a decade in which nothing good happened, and none of the optimistic things we were supposed to believe turned out to be true.
For those of us who think "job creation" is important, private-sector employment has actually declined between December, 1999 and December, 2009. There is no decade on record where that has ever happened.
There were zero economic gains for the typical family. By 2007, median household income was lower than it was in 1999. And, it got worse from there.
Right now housing prices, adjusted for inflation, are roughly back to where they were at the beginning of the decade. 45% of all home owners have a mortgage where loan is for more than their house is worth.
And, it was a decade of zero gain for the stock market. Last week, the Dow closed at 10,520 which is about where it was ten years ago. What happened to that best seller "Dow 36,000"?
Krugman quotes Lawrence (don't call me Larry) Summers, the President's top economic adviser, on what he said in 1999 about why our economy is working so well: America has honest corporate accounting; this lets investors make good decisions, and also forces management to behave responsibly; and the result is a stable, well functioning financial system. And, the percentage of all this that turned out to be true: zero.
So, in the decade of the "Big Zero", we achieved nothing and we learned nothing. Perhaps, in this decade, we could learn a little something by looking back at the mistakes of the last ten years. "Zero" is a good number when it signifies the number of mistakes made.
Now that we've arrived at a new decade, we have the luxury of hindsight to view what happened over the last 10 years. I am, once again, happy to sign on with Paul Krugman for his perspective on the economic aspects of what brought us here. His take on it is the "Big Zero". It was a decade in which nothing good happened, and none of the optimistic things we were supposed to believe turned out to be true.
For those of us who think "job creation" is important, private-sector employment has actually declined between December, 1999 and December, 2009. There is no decade on record where that has ever happened.
There were zero economic gains for the typical family. By 2007, median household income was lower than it was in 1999. And, it got worse from there.
Right now housing prices, adjusted for inflation, are roughly back to where they were at the beginning of the decade. 45% of all home owners have a mortgage where loan is for more than their house is worth.
And, it was a decade of zero gain for the stock market. Last week, the Dow closed at 10,520 which is about where it was ten years ago. What happened to that best seller "Dow 36,000"?
Krugman quotes Lawrence (don't call me Larry) Summers, the President's top economic adviser, on what he said in 1999 about why our economy is working so well: America has honest corporate accounting; this lets investors make good decisions, and also forces management to behave responsibly; and the result is a stable, well functioning financial system. And, the percentage of all this that turned out to be true: zero.
So, in the decade of the "Big Zero", we achieved nothing and we learned nothing. Perhaps, in this decade, we could learn a little something by looking back at the mistakes of the last ten years. "Zero" is a good number when it signifies the number of mistakes made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)