This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -
and yet today, another story....
Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years- Tree ring study gives first accurate climate reading back to 138BC
- World has been slowly cooling for 2,000 years
- World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now
- Study of semi-fossilised trees in Finland
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html#ixzz20LkkT4PDhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-p...
See my link below for some proper context,.. ie. without the hand of the Kochs pulling Ruperts strings....
Are you guys that easily fooled by a pair of biilionaires propaganda?
That would be awesome. I really do not like New York, except to visit. 20+ more feet of water might make visits less attractive. Oh well.
You may want to look at this new study http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-p... which pieces together temperature history over 2000 years and finds cooling. I do not pretend to know either whether AGW is significant though it seems obvious human activity has some impact.
Bruce points to records since we started taking satellite images. Well, no offense but that isnt even a blink of an eye in geological time. So saying it is a record on that basis isnt really saying anything. For what I do know is that the earth has been MUCH warmer and MUCH colder before there was any human activity to impact it.
So whether we are having an impact or not, do we really want to tax the piss out of ourselves to stop producing carbon, or even worse, have a political-crony system of credits that are "traded"? Any sane person would say clearly not. If you are going to do it, it better be in the form of a straightforward tax that cant be fiddled with by evil scumbag politicians and only after FULL debate of the issue on both sides in a representative body. To say the science is settled is a major red flag or should be. For one thing it is never really settled, just more or less agreed upon. And if we are going to bear the cost it better be agreed upon by most everybody, not just Barry and Nancy and Waxman and Reid.
Just tow your house away from the ocean, it's no big deal.
negative rates, Lol.
Done deal. Less is more!
http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/
Installing pontoons is a better option... no more property taxes and freedom to move to a better country without leaving home.
The Law of the Sea Treaty gives the UN the right, indeed the duty, to tax floating residences.
Back to global warming: Did NASA show the ice built up on the other side of the sea? They will not. Gobal warming is a reigion, just like being Vegan and both capitalize in human fear
Dona,
Balance really should not be considered, and I don't understand why you hate livestock, and are so afraid of Brussel's sprouters?
It's quite an affront to the people in the field of greenhouse warming research to suggest that ice may be co-forming in equal measure, elsewhere on the planet, concurrent to its melting.
You're clearly just being difficult, and also rather hurtful to others.
NASA have other things to do than follow up every possible alternative explanation as they need conclusions with which to move humanity forwards, in understanding, and in keeping the dream alive. Plus they are about to land another robotic rover on Mars and they really need to go over their metric to imperial units and conversion-factors again.
Plus it should be of no surprise to you that when one only funds greenhouse warming research that you'll then only ever get a NET outcome of more and more numbers of papers, elucidating the fact that greenhouse theory is valid and the effects all too real.
Obviously, it's like, been proven chick!
So clearly there's a bit more to it all than just a belief system.
PS: lol ... but seriously ... we should hook-up :)
I ain't afraid of no damn vegans!!!
The science is settled.
Global warming as is is hyped today is a red herring proffered by tax crazy politicians, political subversives and well meaning, but ignorant dupes.
a) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
b) “Hey, Genius. Mabye you didn't get the memo, but the two octillion ton fusion gas ball up in the sky, that we lowly riff-raff call "The Sun" is what determines the weather. Not cars, or factories or cow farts.”
-Ann Barnhardt
I seem confused by this whole 'good / bad' thing; where is the down side?
For a multi-million year perspective, I would reccomend this documentary by ABC Austrailia:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/
The Earth has cycles. Go watch Stewart Brand's "Cities & Time". These cycles are MUCH longer than human lives. Earthquakes can often have cycles many generations long. Volcanoes? Much more so. Humans showed up and will dissappear very quickly in the big scheme of things. Do y'all really think people are going to be driving cars and consuming huge volumes of energy per captia in 1000 years? LOL.
Besides, while many focus on CO2, CH4 (methane) is 20 times more effective at trapping heat. Cows make lots of methane. Methane leaks from all sorts of energy producing infrastructure. Oh, and that thawing permafrost has 1000s of years of trapped methane from slow motion bacterial activity.
How many of y'all know about "CO2 flooding" in tertiary oil recovery? Yeah, do some home work on that and get back to me. Hint: they need a shit load of cheap CO2 supplies to make the otherwise very effective recovery method economical.
Kick the can; the game never changes!
Regards,
Cooter
Excuse me, but what earthly interest have we in events that happened millions of years in the past? Humans hadn't even evolved yet.
Things are coming unglued right now, and not in a small way. Can't we just focus on that for a moment? Is that too much to ask?
We're too stupid to survive, I guess.
First: Do you even know who Stewart Brand is? This guy is a serious environmentalist. He is also an independant thinker. In his older age, he has some very, very interesting things to say. Why don't you head over to Fora.tv (google it) and watch.
Second: The Earth has feedback systems that sequester carbon and release carbon. Something discusssed at length in my first link, because anoxic oceans are where lots and lots of oil came from. Insane amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is how you get anoxic oceans.
Third: CO2 is talked about at GREAT length, yet no one talks about CH4. CH4 is the big danger, because when the permafrost melts, shit is going to get real. Do some homework on what happens when permafrosts start melting and how much methane they are capping.
Fourth: I provided a very good thesis for why CO2 is such a culprit (it can be used to resurect old oil fields and generate a lot of oil through CO2 flooding, a tertiary recovery method) and no one talks about CH4 (the real source of warming when the northen climates thaw if you subscribe to such thoughts).
CO2/global warming has nothing to do with anything other than (1) taxing society at large to, (2) economically squeeze dead oil fields for some more barrells.
I have already concluded that in 1000 years, humanity will live, on average, like it did the last 1000 years. This lifestyle we have now is an anomoly. Do something truly hippy and move to Alaska, which is what I did. Oh, right, you are living some arrogant life style in an urban center, "being green", and saving the planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
Regards,
Cooter
You do realise than methane has a short lifespan in the atmosphere before being oxidised to carbon dioxide?
Moreover, a principle source of water vapour in the stratosphere is oxidized methane...
CH4 + 2 O2 -> C02 + 2 H20
Are yeast smarter than humans? The answer may be yes.
The data only allows us to conclude that they are no stupider than humans.....
I dunno, climate cycle analysis?!
WTF!
No sane person should claim that what happened 10 million years ago is what is ruining us today. It is interesting, but only as history. Perhaps history will teach us something about the present, sometimes it does, but that's the limit of what history can do.
To the current problem, where the earth is heating up around us, it might be prudent to have a look around now and wonder what might have come up recently. It might be something, it might be nothing. But regardless the process of looking is called science.
It's the good stuff.
Climate science has some things to say on global warming, as a function of human mediated atmospheric increases in carbon dioxide. Rather a lot to say, actually. Some people care, most do not. Whatever, doesn't matter. But you would have to be insane to claim it is wrong just because you think it is, because it isn't wrong until it is proven wrong within the scientific method.
You are out of your league with me. You probably know that. You have been having some fun and that's fine. Nothing you say changes anyone's mind who hadn't already shared your beliefs. Nothing is lost nor gained here. It is all noise, signifying nothing.
Science cannot predict well, but it can explain. When the earth changes out from under us some of us will know what happened to it. But that is all. Maybe we will tell our children so they understand the physics of things. Maybe they will care. I don't think they will, by then.
And it doesn't matter. What is coming, is coming. If it is bad, we must now suffer. If it is lethal, we must surely die. If we vanish, then probably we never were.
How many times has this gone around, I wonder? In a million years someone might again wonder how many times before this went around.
But we at least won't matter anymore, nor our opinions if we had any.
We probably won't have been at all, to them, by then.
Foolish man. Pinnacle of nothing.
So on the one hand, we are maybe affecting the climate planet, on the other hand, we are arrogant in our self-importance, on the one hand, we should accept what YOU seem to think, despite that is the result of (IMO, and many here) sketchy science, on the other hand...
You clearly want your cake, and you want to eat it, too.
Frankly, having studied the history of science, with it's groupthink (all interested should take careful note of Feynman's 'Cargo Cult Science') and treatment of 'scientific heretics' (Tesla, Velakofsky, VanFlandern, etc.), politically/financially motivated 'scientists'; AND given the fact that I have an inquisitive mind and a good understanding of language, math, technical and logical principles - I think I have more than the right to MAKE UP MY OWN DAMNED MIND, despite the Appeal to Authority you make of and by yourself.
The fact you claim you have some sort of superior position and ability by your self-described label of "scientist" speaks volumes as to your own self-deception with regards to your objectivity. Myself, I look at the facts, draw a conclusion, and present the material I drew it from for others to draw their own.
You seem to think because the status quo rubber stamped your sheepskin, given to you by the "gatekeepers of knowledge", that you have superior powers of discernment. I feel sorry for you.
And THAT kids, is how you do irony.
My fuck, you think science is somekind of romantic ideological struggle...
Was that Velikovsky of "Worlds in Collision" fame? Is that really your idea of science????
You ARE out of your league....
Lol, and Tesla, and Lorentz, and VanFlandern, and Rife, and Naessens, and the whole Electric Universe crew...
You really are a great shill for TPTB science!
BTW, you still haven't addressed the evidence that the entire Greenhouse Effect theory is in serious doubt. http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-11/i-lose-bet-start-argumen...
Oh, and go fuck yourself.
Wow... could you tell me what Del dot B = 0 implies? I mean given your "education" in matters electromagnetic....
And since you are "up" on Lorentz, could you explain the Metric for Minkowski space?
Or how about this goodie at the basis of the electric motor Curl E = 1/c dB/dt
Like I said, if you are too fucking thick to realize that buddy is trying to refute 125 years of thermodynmics then you are too fucking thick to know right from wrong... In other words, you are a poster child for the DK effect.....
My, my, such scholarship! So far removed from the field of climatology!
Why don't you address this http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-11/i-lose-bet-start-argumen...
It was assholes like you that argued the Sun was powered by coal, heavier than air flight was impossible, man would never get to the moon, the nuclear bomb would never work, and locked Galileo up for heresy.
Go fuck yourself.
@LP Talking of coal, your that asshole who thinks diesel engines run on coal dust.
"It was assholes like you that argued the Sun was powered by coal... [other nonsensical drivel]"
Al Gore making red herring anecdotes; http://youtu.be/5YT85v7F0TU
You stick with Gore, I'll stick with Feynman http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
Why do you green your own comments?
LP,
Here is an excellent documentary called The Cloud Mystery you should check out if you haven't seen it already. You sound like you consider many diverse scientific inputs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ
From the website
http://thecloudmystery.com/The_Cloud_Mystery/Home.html
“Our clouds take their orders from the stars,” says the Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark. That's the amazing and provocative discovery reported here. Most experts thought the idea was crazy. The film records ten years of effort by the small team in Copenhagen that, in the end, solved the mystery of how the Galaxy and the Sun interfere in our everyday weather. It's provocative because Dr Svensmark's revelations challenge the belief of most climate theorists that carbon dioxide has been the main driver of global warming. As a result he has faced never-ending opposition.
A fascinating film. This is real scientific analysis not the junk dogma that some of the usual suspects on this thread peddle like clockwork.
@Palmereldrich
If I had read that without the benefit of reviewing the Electric Universe Theory, I wouldn't have junked it, but I'd likely have dismissed what you presented offhand and never looked at it (yep, sometimes I'll dismiss things out of hand. Not so much as I used to though...).
Now, I'll have a look. Following breadcrumbs can lead to some interesting places. Thanks!
- Just checked, and I was familiar with the comsic ray hypothesis before (as I recall there was serious political pressure put on the Danish scientists to recant!), but want to watch the documentary in light of the Electric Universe Theory. Thanks!
Cheers LP,
I've just started investigating the Electric Universe myself...fascinating potential science based in empirical observation and the scientific method as per the link below and totally consistent with CR as a driver for climate science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zixnWeE8A
Added bonus, it drives the TPTB Science pimps crazy when it logically outperforms as an explanation recent cosmological observations versus the latest theoretical math supported bodge required to support the gravity-based Standard Model PR from CERN!
So there would be evidence of changing CR fluxes that would correlate with temperature changes over the past 50 years....
BZZZZT.... sorry, not the case...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm
but the role of CRs in cloud formation is an interesting topic...
Not that I want to wade into this particular area of the debate RE: cloud theory (yes I saw the videos years before), but two thoughts....
(1) If the theory is accurate, it is a broad multi-millenea type trend making a life generation a rounding error
(2) thus all the annual metrics along the way are noise
Personally, I subscribe tot he fact that the Earth has biological systems that behave as feedback loops, where conditions race to one end of the pool, the to the other. Not in a linear fashion, but as a trend. I mean, chemistry is pretty stable compared to biology which likes to get all exponentiation and crash into asymptotes. Shit gets hot, compounds that heat things up get stowed away by biology, shit gets cold, compounds that heat things up get set lose by biology.
How many readers realize that if ice *sank* how different the world would be? Think about it. If water froze, then sank to the depths of the ocean (no heat) then all water would become ice over time. The system (i.e. the Earth) *has to have* a balance built in (if it did NOT you would NOT be here - it would be some hellish planet like all the others). The Earth has to have mechanisms built in, by definition of life being here after X billion years, that keep the operating temperature in line with organic life.
Besides, if you really believe in global warming, why aren't you moving to Alaska, Siberia, or Canada where life will be better, instead of converting the plebes to your ideology which will in no way make life (where every you live) any better a'tall?
Regards,
Cooter
P.S. Danny Hillis said it best.
It's funny when I saw the title of this thread, Lose a bet start an argument I thought of you Pimpmeister...but typically it's the reverse with you: Lose an argument start a bet
You're having your ass handed to you tonight worse than on that recent coal thread (FYI for any casual unregistered readers: a lot of unseen down-vote red arrows).
Too bad Tmos wasn't here so you could top it all off with a foaming rant about making a silver bet...LOL
68 posts from FlimFlamMeister in this one thread (so far)!!!! Taking alarmism and tax collection to a whole new level!!!
Well someone has to set the record straight on dis-information, eh?
...and who better than a super-salesman for statist disinfo...
LowProfile regularly shits on silver and silver stackers. If that's not doing the work for the central banks then I don't know what is.
Again your comments tickle the fancy of the Facebook crowd, LP, but you're still an idiot.
"And THAT kids, is how you do irony." <- make no mistake, using this phrase at every possible opportunity DOES in fact make you an idiot =)