This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
I Lose a Bet, Start an Argument
Back on November 17, 2011 I penned a piece in response to Fed Governor Bullard's assertions regarding the collapse of MF Global. Bullard thought there was no lasting consequences to that blow-out: .
.
.
At the time, I thought that Bullard was full of crap, and that there would be significant consequences to the collapse of MFG. My words:
Okay, Mr. Bullard I'll make you a wager. A six pack of your favorite beer. Give the MFG story another month and it will be a problem. It will undermine markets. It will impact confidence in our financial system. It will impact liquidity. As those things will occur it will force both the Treasury and the Fed to take actions.
I was wrong, Mr. B was right. There were no consequences to the MFG disaster. No heads rolled. No one went to jail. There were no lasting economic consequences. There were were no regulatory changes. The MFG affair was buried. Bullard never accepted my bet, but I still feel I owe him. If he reads this and sends me a note I will forward his beer. He deserves it. He won. Unfortunately, we all "lost" as a result. Today we have yet another MFG in our laps. Perigrine Financial has followed the exact same path as MFG. The PFG bankers looted customer accounts.
.
.
I lost a bet for $12 worth of beer. Customers at Peregrine have lost $220m (so far). I can’t help wondering what would have happened had won the bet. If there had been hell to pay regarding the MFG affair, things might have turned out differently for Peregrine’s customer. But there was no market reaction, the CFTC ignored the signs, the SEC never lifted a finger. Nothing changed, so history has repeated itself.
Perigrine customers, looking at a loss today, might be warming up lawsuits against Bart Chilton and the CFTC. He clearly fell down on the job. I think he should be fired on the spot. Fed Governor Bullard is not responsible for the failure of Peregrine (or MFG), but his dismissing attitude is:
This is no big deal, it will blow over”
To that extent, he shares in the blame.
.
. .
+++
.
The markets are boring, so let's talk about global warming
.
I have absolutely no credentials or expertise to discuss matters related to climate change. I’ll do it anyway. I follow this topic and read what I can. In my opinion:
I) - Climate change is happening on a global scale. The evidence that this occurring is conclusive.
II) - I don’t know if humans are contributing to the rapid change, but I suspect they are.
III) - Even if there were conclusive evidence that human activity was contributing to global warming, I’m not at all sure that there is anything that can be done about it.
Consider these before and after pictures from NASA. These are images of the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska.
.
May 13, 2012
..
One month later
.
Okay, so some ice melted. Is that a big deal? The folks at NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) think it is:
Sea ice retreat in June is typical, but the first half of June 2012 brought unusually rapid ice loss.
How unusual?
On June 19, 2012, NSIDC reported: “Recent ice loss rates have been 100,000 to 150,000 square kilometers per day, which is more than double the climatological rate.”
Double the rate? How much ice is melting every day in the Beauford Sea? About the size of the state of Illinois – big!
As of June 18, temperatures were above freezing over much of the sea ice in the Arctic, and snow had melted earlier than normal, leading to warming on land.
June 18? It has been hot as hell over the globe since then. This year’s arctic ice melt will set a record.
The rapid melt north of Alaska was part of a larger phenomenon. Sea ice across the entire Arctic reached record-low levels for this time of year. It was also lower than the extent in June 2007; Arctic sea ice reached its lowest extent ever recorded by satellite in September 2007.
This is not a record that we want to set. Now consider this number:
20,900,000,000,000
.
20.9 Trillion is the number of pounds of CO2 that humans sent into the atmosphere in the last 12 months. It’s hard to relate to a number as big as that. Think seven billion Hondas. But even that is a number that is hard to fathom, as there are only a billion cars in the world today. How could we be producing 7Xs the weight of all the cars, every year?
Is there a connection to the incredible output of CO2 and the rapid ice melt that is happening all over the world? I wish I knew the answer to this question. I do know that CO2 emissions are directly tied to population growth/economic activity. The question is how rapidly CO2 output will rise:
.
.
Any thoughts?
.
.
»
- advertisements -
right, meaning you dont understand how science works. Out of context means just that.... fucking idiot
Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? Groucho Marx
...and why is it the "Al Gores" of the green movement cannot tell you why EVERY planet in our solar system is HEATING up???? Thats right, it has nothing to do with humans! Volcanoes spew more crap in one blow than centurys of combined emissions. It boils down to one, and one thing only - solar cycles, and this one is a bitch... maybe the Mayans were right ;)
We should also be looking at the MILLIONS of gallons of dispersants used in the Gulf and how they have basically shut the Gulf Loop down.
Strange Vortex On Saturn Moon Titan | Space.com - http://bit.ly/LPF32p
"While Titan's northern hood still remains, the circulation in the upper atmosphere has been moving from the warming north pole to the cooling south, researchers said. This shift appears to be causing downwellings over Titan's south pole, along with the formation of high-altitude haze and a vortex there."
The warming is coming too early on Titan.
Watch the sun:
Current Solar Data: NOAA data - http://bit.ly/Mj1Qmo
It's quiet now (11 Jul). Been banging for the past few days as the graphs show.
Please provide credible evidence of your claim...
And you are dead wrong about C02 from volcanos they are 1% of human emissions....
You mean the same data that these supposed scientists can't even agree upon? Hell one USGS article indicated that scientists say that in 2010 it was projected for co2 to be 35 Gigatons... yea... its about agenda. You need to see WHO funded these studies, and WHY. Natural (Anthropogenic) emissions from land, vegetation, oceans, everything is higher than any co2 emissions from humans.
Please cite your data....
Could you explain the Suess effect?
Here, you might chew on this for a while
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/
Pay attmetion to who the author is and the links therein....
Please elaborate on "most of the raw data".... you are making shit up...
As for the MWP, please provide evidence that it was warmer GLOBALLY than now.... and don't peddle out the repeatedly discredited Loehle 2008 paper...
Citing a statement on the research unit's Web site, CEI blasted the research unit for the "suspicious destruction of its original data." According to CRU's Web site, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
CEI and Cato Institute senior fellow Patrick Michaels argued that the "destruction of [CRU's] raw data violates basic scientific norms regarding reproducibility, which are especially important in climatology."
Is this the same Michaels that lied to Congress when he deliberately misrepresented Hansens work?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/michaels-continues-to-distort-hansen-1988-part-1.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/michaels-continues-to-distort-hansen-1988-part-2.html
I would say that Micheals is pretty fast and loose with the "truth"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Michaels-Misrepresents-Nordhaus.html
I would say Mr. Michaels has very dubious integrity....
BTW, what fraction of the data does the CRU claim represent?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/03/04/205600/science-nsf-tundra-permafrost-methane-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-venting/
To difficult to calculate net effects just yet. We have had conversations for decades thats the core focus is political revenue harvestors. I worked on a project and in the ninety's and utilizing over 36 million pounds per year of mannich reactioned organics with encapsulated cationic polymer that was utilized and we stopped ocean dumping and arrested some oceanic void zones. The organic material reclaimed which was the largest organic chemistry metropolitan accounts on the planet then was utilized on taling piles to adjust ph and reclaim soil regions to sustain organic life. To complicated but we need all systems firing correctly to be brief. Oceans die we die its that simple. The balance of nature is that. I have see models some have not just as we all have to regional problems so opinions are just that and not all the facts are equall. Some have been trying for many decades and that is key going forward. The point is carbon tax does not increase production to reclaim what is dying from agenda. You, and me.
Dear Bruce,
Why do you hate my food supply?
Sincerely,
Plant Life
P.S. We like warmth too
Wow, you provide a new meaning to superficiality...
You are aware of the difference between C3 and C4 plants?
Maybe you could read this to clarify things:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm
Apologies, Flak, but I am really not into theological discussions.
You are forgiven...
but you better learn the difference between science and religion...
Science is the one that relies on fear-mongering, branding of heretics and non-believers, and fanatical devotion to a thesis, even in the absence of supporting data, right? Science is the one that requires sacrifice to appease forces beyond the grasp of ordinary observation, right? Science is the one decided by consensus instead of reproducible observations, right?
Seems hard to keep them straight sometimes...
No, science is the one that advances practical knowledge by postulating falsifyable hypothoses and testing those hypotheses subject to public verification in a repeatable manner.
You had it backwards.
My apologies, I thought my descriptions were so over the top that one would be unable to recognize them as anything but sarcasm. I will be sure to tag it as such next time.
Just don't let it happen again.
temerature go up
temperature go down
rains come rains go
look at a geological time length graph for fucks sake
sharp ups
sharp downs
global warming myth is simply a distraction from real polution, and a stupid in for a global(warming) tax
ask an aussie
Stop Global Whining!
bruce, let's pray that global warming is happening and that it IS manmade.
global warming alarmism, while a farce, may point to some hopeful possibilities. if the world is rapidly warming vast swatchs of north american , the u.s. and canada, as well as northern europe and russia will become agriculturally productive as well as more habitable. this will presumably come at the expense of the developing world much of which lies on the middle lattitudes.
global warming will bring heating costs per person down and people in overly hot climates can move to cooler ones. the developing world will have to buy more of its food from the united states, which is an extraodinarly positive development for the west.
global warming is a total and utter lie in every which possible way that it is meant to be conveyed as a 'fact' upon which 'action' must be based.
global warming was invented as a means to persuade people to accept taxes and regulation and eminent domain of all sorts. when in fact, the old-school conservationism and environmentalism that we have accepted as a moral code STILL works just fine.
global warming has been used to relate all sorts of silly problem that it has NOTHING to do with, for example , that americans should lose weight becuase of global warming, when in fact they should lose weight for their own health and can do so merely by walking more , being more active generally, and making their own food instead of eating out. The global warming argument is often paired with all sorts of totally insane solutions like special taxes and special regulations that WILL NOT bring about the supposed desired effect, but will enrich government institutions whose wealth is measured by the amount of jobs they can dole out, and individuals in banks and consulting fraudcompanies who will make a fortune, further impoverishing the economy we have by forcing payments to 'specialists' who are there only as parasites.
coal is the dirtiest fuel----and so we've used more natural gas in a progressive way. the global warming people think this is terrible and equate fracking and natural gas with poisoning the environment.
they are not there to provide solutions---ONLY---to complain and smear economic activity to the point where they can persuade people of the righteousness of taxation/fines/and hiring employees to 'regulate' companies. regulation in the name of c02 controls is total nonsense and completely inconsistent across the board.
basic regulation of pollution of particulates , nitro-x's , smog, and poinsonous chemicals in exaust, as well as subsidies for alternative fuels and electricity seem to be a reasonable approach to move forwrad that doesn't necessarily place tons of money in fraudsters pocket and doesn't promote the insitutiotnal creep of government autohrity in the way that c02 regulation does.
you have GOT to see this. the idea that 'global warming' is a problem is a full on joke. and a brainwashing scam. if it is happening, which it may well be, it is not the kind of thing we can control, nor it is the kind of thing we should be focussing on to solve our problems.
the biggest problems are still the obvious ones staring you in the face like the threat of nuclear war, deforestation, exaustion of fishing stocks and fresh water stocks, global food supply security, and plague. yea---the basics. things you have seen flare up tragically over and over again in the last century, and all over the world. Not to mention the possibility of disruptive overnight devalutaions across the west and japan--large scale theft of savings and the destruction of social security , and i don't mean the fund, I mean the description of a secure society where people can rely on their savings to get them through hard time and old age, and freely help those who they determine need it most. the destruction of this type of society wide security which places people at the mercy , or in the brainwashed service of--tyranical governments, cult leaders, ultrawealthy capitalists, and other powerful people.
stop worry about global warming and worry about these real things, like the the fraud you talk about at the beginning of your article. stay away from global warming and 'climate'.
Good post, especially pointing out the "real" problems. I remember reading a Der Spiegel interview of Hank Paulson when he was the new Treasury Secretary, before he showed, on bended knee, his true colors. He was big on the carbon tax idea and environmentalism. At that time he sounded oh so reasonable, but in retrospect, it is easy to see that he is just a typical member of the elite. I can't recall exactly, but I believe he was also a big proponent of population control. I think you can see where this is headed. Excessive human population is responsible for global warming which will destroy our planet. Hence, there are those who feel the moral thing to do is to eliminate humans. Of course that would leave only the elite in their undergound caverns, as their population reduction measures take place on the surface, but the human race would survive, particularly if there were several women selected for their alluring sexual characteristics for each man. Though this violates their committment to serial monogamy, it is unfortunately a sacrifice that would have to be made.
I believe you left out one important problem, which is the question of rounding up the world's elite and sending them off to a desert island prison colony. Care would have to be taken to make sure that no non-elite helpers or servants would go with them, so that their survival on that island would depend completely on their own plenteous native intelligence, rather than their current practice of hiring "talent" (aka "milking the aphids") to do their thinking for them.
Trust me...I'm a doctor...really
Global Warming is a complicated topic. I am not an expert but I do know real scientist do not lie...it is a career ending move among the big guys. Warming advocates have been caught lying.
I am also suspicious of solutions (taxes) looking for problems (global warming).
In conclusion thank you for coming and when you find a global warming person who does not want higher taxes show me, they are a rareity.
no, they werent caught lying, thats is and was complete bullshit.
That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is...
Show me the lies.....
I can trot out about 10 outright fabrications by the denialistas....
You didn't get the joke, did you?
How can we determine anything to be a lie, if the "truth" is constantly being redefined, in a truly Orwellian manner?
Well, by your measure Newton was a liar because Einstein was shown to be more true over a broader range of phenomena?
The Orwellian manner you refer to is the province of the fake skeptics and deniers....
You will need to dig a little deeper in your bag of crazy comparisons, than trying to mark a single change over 236 years (Newton 1687, Einstein 1923) as an example of "constant redefinition" I was talking of!
By the way, I'm curious:
How do you distinguish between "fake skeptics and deniers" and real skeptics (if there can even be such a thing), in your conception of the world?
Spot on, doc...Bruce, you make the lay mistake of not having enough information as you parrot discredited 'science.' I'm a scientist, this stuff is a joke, not even worth deconstructing. Stick with the MFG stuff - now there, when you speak, I'm listening.
Here we go again!! Food fight...food fight...clean up crew to the mess hall!!!
FFS, even IF there is a global warming trend (which many dispute, while others lie about the data) ... it will take decades or centuries to either manifest or be corrected ... meanwhile,
WE HAVE A GLOBAL FINANCIAL FARCE GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND THAT REALLY DOES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED!!!!
Stay focussed, Bruce.
Keeping things in perspective and prioritising issues of concern is not what we need right now!
We would be much better served by wonton over-reactions, to stuff which almost completely fails to have any measurable physical expression.
You know it makes sense!
centuries to manifest? open your fucking door, We just set 23,283 record high daily temperatures set thus far, this year in the US.
Christ its like Im in some twilight zone epsiode here.
The only thing causing all that ice to melt is the hot air bull coming from zero's skinny mouth.
I think the guy on the right in that last picture thought his steak last night tasted funny.
my theory...its not the cars or the CO2...its the methane..most of which is produced by mammals, like us. the average joe six pack farts 50 times a day, the average fat cat around 150 times a day. multiply 7 billion humans times that number of farts, on a pro farta (sic) basis and you have the real nub? of the problem..we are farting ourselves into a gas based methane planet and away from a nitrogen/oxygen one. wait til we eat more vegies and have ten billion people....
tongue in cheek (ugh) but here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html
http://www.geekosystem.com/dinosaur-farts/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120319170609AAlpKrs
One more reason I'm glad I bought a Honda GX (CNG car).
speak for yourself, I'm not a fat cat but I'm hitting well over a hundred farts a day. My office is a methane lab.
Global warming? Really? You went THERE? What's next, you becoming a proponent for carbon credits? LOL
I suggest you read -
Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html#ixzz20LDaZyEL
If you want me to get off on the conspiracy side and prove that Al's bunch is full of it I will be glad to do that as well.
of fucking spare me, Global warming is not about a LOCALIZED area. Also tree rings do not coorelate specifically to temperature.
This is more LOW INFORMATION bullshit that you idiots feed on,. num num num
But there were rainforests then. This is now.
http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/bio%20101/bio%20101%20lectures/photosynthesis/photosyn.htm Photosynthesis equation.
http://www.savetherainforest.org/savetherainforest_007.htm
(from article)
Norman Myers, in his book, The Primary Source, writes that "tropical rainforests are the Earth’s oldest continuous ecosystems.
Fossil records show that the forests of Southeast Asia have existed in more or less their present form for 70 to 100 million years.
The intensity of life forms is extraordinary: on the order of 1,000 species per square kilometer. By comparison, here in North America, we might only find 100 species in the same space." (2)
The largest rainforests are found in the Amazon Basin of South America, in Western African countries that skirt the equator, as well as South Pacific countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines. Smaller tracts of rainforests exist throughout Central America, parts of Mexico and Hawaii, as well as other islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.
Circling the Earth’s equator like a belt, the tropical rainforests maintain a near constant temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit and receive anywhere from 160 to 400 inches of rain per year. These favorable weather conditions allow all life forms to flourish year- round. Furthermore, by virtue of their location, the tropical rainforests were spared the extreme loss of life that characterized other regions of the globe during the ice ages. These two factors help explain why the tropical rainforests are home to between 50 and 70 million different life forms.
Tragically, the tropical rainforests are being destroyed at an alarming rate. According to Rainforest Action Network, more than an acre-and-a-half is lost every second of every day (refer to the entries below to see, quantitatively, what that translates into). That’s an area more than twice the size of Florida that goes up in smoke every year!
"If present rates of destruction continue, half our remaining rainforests will be gone by the year 2025, and by 2060 there will be no rainforests remaining."
Every second . . we lose an area the size of two football fields!
Every minute . . we lose an area 29 times the size of the Pentagon!
Every hour . . . we lose an area 684 times larger than the New Orleans Superdome!
Every day . . . we lose an area larger than all five boroughs of New York City!
Every week . . . we lose an area twice the size of Rhode Island!
Every month . . .we lose an area the size of Belize!
Every year . . . we lose an area more than twice the size of Florida!
At the very least, "with the destruction of the tropical rainforests, over half the plant and animal species on earth, as well as numerous indigenous cultures will disappear forever."(2) If strong and decisive action is not taken immediately to reverse the destruction of this vital ecosystem, the consequences will be catastrophic. In fact, many scientists agree that the earth could very well become uninhabitable for virtually every living species, including humans!
Some additional information of note:
"Cooling of air temperature due to the effect of trees has
been well documented in the past through various studies.
A tree can be regarded as a natural “evaporative cooler”
using up to 100 gallons of water a day (Kramer and
Kozlowski, 1960). This rate of evapotranspiration translates
into a cooling potential of 230,000 kcal/day. This cooling
effect, observed in a study by Geiger, is the primary cause
of 5 deg C differences in net peak noontime temperatures
observed between forests and open terrain, and a 3 deg C
difference found in noontime air temperatures over irrigated
millet fields as compared to bare ground (Geiger, 1957).
Temperature measurements in suburban areas recorded
similar but smaller variations in daytime peaks of 2 deg C
to 3 deg C between neighborhoods under mature tree
canopies and newer areas with no trees (McGinn, 1982)."
MICROCLIMATE MODIFICATION:
CALCULATING THE EFFECT OF TREES ON AIR TEMPERATURE
http://www.sbse.org/awards/docs/Saxena.pdf
Good point! i agree as I have six sequoia trees (60 feet and up) in my yard and the savings in air conditioning costs is profound just from the proximity and shade they provide. When I stand underneath them, the air is several degrees cooler.
Stick to what you understand Bruce.
I was taught in school(I'm that old)about the coming ice age.
Must have been asleep cause i missed it.
Same squeeze play for grants plus the NWO not so secret plan for
total control thru Agenda 21.
The Earth will be just fine ,homo sapiens ,who knows.
Thats the real hubris.That we think we could cause it , let alone stop it.
I'm pleased to see you refrence agenda 21 - that's the biggie we need to raise awareness of. Total control bitchez!
Regardless of whether AGW is true or false (Where are Tmos and Flak?), we live entirely in-efficient lives.
10-15% efficiency from fuel to wheel in the auto-motive space is beyond ridiculous. Environmental impacts aside. We are similarly in-efficient (almost as if by design) in all our use of machinery. And before any smart-aleck says no, please consider embedded energy in EVERYTHING, cradle meaning mine/well to grave meaning fully returned to component elements.
Modern science and engineering SUCK. And that is the problem. Blind, hubris-filled or perhaps just because in-efficiency is more profitable.
There is another way....perhaps many other ways... we owe it to ourselves to flex our mind-sets. Else we are screwed regardless of whether AGW is a sin of omission or comission.
ori
6666-beyond-carbon-beyond-time
Someone should do a statistical correlation of global warming when compared to to the temperture of the other planets AND then do a correlation of global warming compared to annual CO2 output.
Based on what I have been reading, the manmade global warming people would have a better case if the rest of the planets in the solar system were not warming as well.
... Oh, and the slimeballs won't go to jail. Although some form of punishment is obviously due. The MF global and Peregrin thingies are just another symptom of our planetary disease (we have been infected).
Now just add a discussion of crop insurance and how global warming/ ethanol insanity causes the actual dollar amounts to soar potentially to the trillions of dollars and you start to have the more important discussion of "making money real in an un-real money world."
"OH SHIT OH? JEEESUS CHRAIST."