>

Good Tuesday morning — Dow futures are indicating an opening of 100+ today, following 7 consecutive sessions of losses.

Speaking of 100, today is supposed to hit 100 degrees in NYC, for the first time in about a decade. (If I were a moron who didn’t understand the difference between climate and weather, I would make a snarky comment about global warming. You know, the way the denialists do every time it gets cold out. But I am too classy to go there).

Where was I? Ahhh, yes, 100. That would be Dow points, degrees, and miles from NYC. Which is where I am, riding out the heat wave. Slathering on the SPF30 (Did you see that last Kudlow Report? My wife said I was the only one who looked like they ever left the office. Barry & the Very White Dudes).

But I digress.

Its a very light week when it comes to economic data, and some of the more senior staff are enjoying some down time. Look for light volume, easily pushed around indices.

For those of you poor bastards working in the city this week, stay cool . . .

Category: Markets

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

21 Responses to “G’Morning Pop”

  1. PeterR says:

    July 2004 Redux at MA(322) and EMA(409)? Looks pretty similar IMO. Oversold SLOITC’s aligned.

  2. rktbrkr says:

    No PIIGS got skewered by ratings agencies – time to put rally hats back on, today budget cuts won’t stop anemic recovery.

  3. BR,

    …Is a good sunscreen all I need to stay safe?

    No. Sunscreen can only provide partial protection against harmful effects of the sun. Limiting sun exposure and wearing protective clothing are even more important for protecting your skin from cancer and premature aging. Be extra careful about sun exposure between 10 am and 4 pm when the sun’s burning rays are most intense, but remember that UVA radiation is more constant and doesn’t decline during morning, on overcast days, or even inside. Apply sunscreen generously 30 minutes before going outside and reapply it often — at least every 2 hours. Even the best sunscreen won’t work well if you don’t use it correctly (ACS 2007; BCCDC 2003).

    back to top

    Doesn’t the government ensure that sunscreen protects us?

    No. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has two systems that theoretically regulate sunscreen safety and effectiveness, one has never been implemented and the other is optional and rarely used. The upshot is that there are no mandatory requirements about what sunscreen manufacturers can (and can’t) put into their products, and what kind of claims they can print on the label. The Connecticut Attorney General has called the current situation a “marketing Wild West” in which “sunscreen makers can make claims that are unproven and untrue.”…
    http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/faqs-2010/

    for a brush-up..

    and, remember, that what those Long-Sleeve (Heavy Cotton) T-Shirts are, really, for..

    http://www.cheapestees.com/hanes-tagless-long-sleeve-pocket-tshirt-5596.html

    also, http://ultimatehat.com/cart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1_48&zenid=a091e016f8b3ef8fe6bd7be87cea56ef

  4. JohnL says:

    The same humility and skepticism that keeps us profitable in a zero sum macro world (futures) also keeps us from thinking that we impact a dynamic ecosystem that has survived 5 billion years. You are “too classy to go there”…except you just went there. Your financial and economic analysis are excellent, but your digressions….well, not so much.

    Keep up the good (financial) analysis.

  5. rktbrkr says:

    Every time it gets really cold it’s proof that global warming is a figment, every time it’s really hot it’s proof that GW is upon us, we still haven’t gotten beyond the point where eveybody still talks about the weather

  6. Kort says:

    When you do get the climate thing figured out, let us know your thoughts on the repairs that been made to the ozone layer (it’s healing) and the side effects of it (more smog). Ozone? No Ozone? What should we be wishing for…

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100701/sc_livescience/thedownsidetotherecoveryoftheozonehole

  7. Julia Chestnut says:

    Barry and the Very White Dudes — did you guys play my bat mitzvah?

  8. We’re no longer called the Very White Dudes. We’re on the verge of becoming Kathleen Turner Overdrive, but just for tonight, we are Barry Jive and his Uptown Five.

  9. Steve — I was not referring to YOU.

    I was referring to the eejits who insisted, every time it snowed in February, that this was proof the globe was not warming . . .

  10. litw3030 says:

    Barry,

    Anthropogenic climate warming skeptics, like myself, do understand the difference between weather and climate.

    Can you appreciate that we understood the difference back in 2005 when Katrina was ‘proof’ of climate warming? Or on the countless times since the late 1990′s when new studies were released citing man-caused global warming for food shortages, droughts, expansion of the deserts, decline of species, rising sea levels, shrinking rainforests, on and on and on.

    You’re a finance guy …. follow the money. See where the incentives lie on this subject.

  11. HEHEHE says:

    Relief rally is due. Now if the guy who said he’s going to get here by lunch to fix my air conditioning actually shows up on time I’ll be a happy camper.

  12. Jan Perlwitz says:

    @JohnL:

    The same humility and skepticism that keeps us profitable in a zero sum macro world (futures) also keeps us from thinking that we impact a dynamic ecosystem that has survived 5 billion years.

    There is no logic in your statement. That there was an ecosystem that hat survived for 5 billion years doesn’t logically falsify that humankind has become another factor, in addition to natural climate drivers, that significantly changes Earth’s climate. What ecosystem is this supposed to be, anyway, about which you are talking here, that allegedly has survived all the billion years? Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, the oldest common ancestors of today’s life appeared 500 million to 1 billion years later. In the course of evolution, ecosystems have come and go. There probably have been several mass extinction events in the last 500 million years alone, during which 50 or more percent, and up to 85% of the existing species got extinct. So what are you talking about?

  13. haileris says:

    Remember to use the sunscreen without any Oxybenzone in it! You don’t want any of that nasty endocrine disruptor crap. (zinc oxide is the only way to go)

  14. Jan Perlwitz says:

    @litw3030:

    Can you appreciate that we understood the difference back in 2005 when Katrina was ‘proof’ of climate warming?

    Who has supposedly claimed that Katrina was “proof” of global warming? Any scientists? Any scientific studies? Could you name sources for this alleged claim, please?

    Or on the countless times since the late 1990’s when new studies were released citing man-caused global warming for food shortages, droughts, expansion of the deserts, decline of species, rising sea levels, shrinking rainforests, on and on and on.

    These possibly are all global or regional effects of global warming. What exactly does this say about the difference between weather and climate, supposedly?

    Sorry, Barry. You opened this.

  15. ubnutsagain says:

    Denialists?!?!?!?

    Attaching mindless labels to people who question simply classifies the labelor as one who doesn’t.

    BR, I do think you did yourself a disservice there … since in business and financial matters not questioning is a clear sign of management by luck.

    I certainly do think you’re better than that.

  16. krice2001 says:

    “BR, I do think you did yourself a disservice there … since in business and financial matters not questioning is a clear sign of management by luck.”

    The climate change “debate” apparently goes on. I see this as BR’s blog and he can comment any way he chooses. I see no “disservice” in his comment on global warming (or global climate change, if you prefer) and it certainly is perfectly in line what climate scientists say who do research this area. In fact, they don’t have a debate. His comment was purposely snarky, so what? As they say, deal with it. And I don’t see the connection between finance and economics vs. climate science. Only one of them qualifies as a science and only one has practicioners who are actual objective scientists.

  17. krice,

    w/this: “…And I don’t see the connection between finance and economics vs. climate science. Only one of them qualifies as a science and only one has practicioners who are actual objective scientists…”

    are you being Serious?

    have you seen any of (polyglot) http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=Climategate+Hadley+CRU+Hockey-Stick+Fraud+Cap+and+Trade+Trillion+dollar+Cost ?

  18. ubnutsagain says:

    “…only one of them qualifies as a science and only one has practicioners who are actual objective scientists.”

    Well let’s see, there’s Phil Jones, Phd, the disgraced former head of the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia who played a key role in the UN – IPCC’s reports about AGW.

    Then there’s Michael Mann, Phd, fabricator of the infamous and now discredited “hockey stick” presentation of 1000 years of global temperatures, a presentation given a prominent place in the UN – IPCC reports to governments.

    Not to mention Stephen Schineider, Phd, who so objectively said “I get scared that we’re now in a new Weimar republic where people are prepared to listen to what amounts to Hitlerian lies about climate scientists”

    To wrap up this tip-of-the-iceberg message, there’s Kevin Trenberth, Phd (an AGW collaborator with the above three so-called “objective scientists”) who wrote about the past 10 years lack of warming, saying “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming, and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”

    Yes, “such a travesty” that they have no idea why.

    To each his own, good soul … to each his own.

  19. cdosquared5 says:

    saying you won’t go there, and then going there = queer

    And then the italicized “Where was I?” , come on you sound like one of those guys that is too fat to see his balls, oh wait, i shouldn’t have gone there.

  20. riverrat says:

    Well said, krice2001.

    ubnutsagain, cherry-picking a few comments regarding this enormously complex topic doesn’t offer much support for your skepticism.

    Objective scientists have every right to make normative statements about how science is used or misused. Schneider simply made a colorful analogy regarding the insanity of using messy science practiced by a single research team (University of East Anglia CRU) to characterize climate scientists as self-serving liars and question climate change research in general. There were certainly problems with the East Anglia CRU, but to suggest that these issues indicate serious “debate” regarding overall climate trends is preposterous. Schneider had every right to point this out, and whether or not he sounded “objective” in doing so is irrelevant. His comment wasn’t science and wasn’t being passed off as such. It was a knowledgeable person commenting on how science was being distorted, and how problems at a particular institute were being erroneously used to question the integrity of an entire scientific field and body of knowledge.

    Similarly, climate scientists did not say that Katrina “proves” the existence of climate change. If this appeared in print, it was written by a reporter who misunderstands science. No scientist would make such a claim about a single event. Scientists gather evidence through observation, experiment and statistical analysis. (At most, Katrina was another piece of evidence that hurricanes may be increasing in frequency and severity, which some scientists have suggested could be expected with global warming- hurricanes pick up energy from warm ocean currents.)

    Over time enough evidence may accumulate that experts conditionally accept a conclusion as “fact”. But all facts are subject to further evidence. If enough evidence comes to light over time, or through new lines or methods of research, an accepted “fact” may be discarded in favor of updated, more limited, or different conclusions that better explain the preponderance of evidence. There is still much uncertainty about the extent and magnitude of potential effects of climate change, and interactions between climate and other environmental processes in particular regions. But overall, the evidence that human-induced climate change is no longer seriously questioned by those working in the field, or by those who are willing and able to objectively assess this evidence.

    Personally, I’d love it if climate change turned out to be fabrication of self-serving scientists and politicians- I like using fossil fuels. But for now, I’m not arrogant or foolish enough to deny the tremendous amount and consistency of existing evidence. Those who do are mostly just thinking wishfully, usually do not understand science, and/or have a big stake in maintaining the status quo.

    Or maybe they listen to Faux News and Rush Limbaugh too much…

  21. TakBak04 says:

    Ahhh…BR..had respite in the SUN…!

    I’m going in just a week to one of your sponsors (ads) on “TBP” for two weeks of Fun in the Sun and Food and Stuff (SC COAST) and I, and other, hope not to come back as Pasty White Boys….(Ugh…the way we describe ourselves, these days!)

    Anyway, BR…for your Beachtime Reading on your Blackberry or I-Pod…I do recommend this one… Because the “TakBak’s” are Headed his WAY for VACATION! It’s a colorful story….if you didn’t alreadyknow about it. But, how those Southern Boys deal with Finances is always a “nuanced read.”
    :-D And, after HH Island….Kiawah and the “S&L Disaster” is another good “Dig Read.” Ahhhh we Southerners…..we just have so much “STUFF” we have to deal with…and much is LEGACY…UGH.

    ———–

    Bobby Ginn: A GUST OF BANKRUPTCY AND SCANDAL RATTLES ELEGANT HILTON HEAD ISLAND (www.nytimes.com)

    New York Times does a Puff Piece on Boby Ginn this weekend…leaving out his history…

    IT’s Tee Time. Where Is Everybody?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/business/24golf.html

    (If “ClusterStock” thought the “Noel Girls” were a good story…just check out Bobby Ginn that the NYT’s is trying to make out as a “Good Ole Boy” who might be the Southern Donald Trump in their lates post about GINN.

    Go Back and read this to know that Scammer’s History!
    A GUST OF BANKRUPTCY AND SCANDAL RATTLES ELEGANT HILTON HEAD ISLAND
    By ALBERT SCARDINO

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/business/24golf.htm