Oh. You were talking about *those* people. Good thing there aren't any of them on our side which is lily white ethically speaking. I'm glad that the ideologues at the IPCC can do my thinking for me and I don't have to worry about them doing anything unethical. They're scientists for gosh sakes!! That means we can trust them.
Um, No. I think this is a point that more objective people have been trying to make repeatedly. It *is* possible to read the ClimateGate letters in total and want an investigation of particular people/instituions completely independent of your thoughts on Anthropogenic Global Warming. To argue as above only makes you look like a nut.
You should actually read IPCC AR4. The "facts" you state above are not facts at all but are conjectures which the group of scientists have "90%" confidence in. There are already plenty of climate scientists who question those above statements, so I feel no need to do the same. Do have any *real* facts to bring to the argument? Or can we expect more confused rhetoric?
How pray tell was this modded insightful? A generalization/perjorative and little else. Where are my mod points when I need them? PLease somebody mod this down. The Gods of Objectivity are screaming for it.
Completely agree. People who only see the single side of the coin in regards to corporations are *really* just socialist sheeple. I'm thankful for and proud of the vast majority of corporate america. Those who aren't should move to the third world and forego the evil that is the american corporation.
Wow. Where are my mod points when I need them? Are there any adults that can mod this whole thread into oblivion? This is probably the worst thread I've read in quite some time, and that's saying something on/. Can someone at least meta-moderate this?
Well, I think we'll have to disagree a little on Bernanke's scorecard. He got us through the crisis, but some came out much better than others. Anyone with billions of dollars to lend could have done the same thing. I think a perceptive person would have recognized that you don't have to go around reimbursing bad debts at 100% just because you can. The current stir about the Fed could have been avoided if he would have given a few haircuts. He may soon get his own.
Well, Forgive me, because I don't know much about finance and the Fed, but Bernanke had other options other than the one taken didn't he? It seems he could have threatened doing a whole host of things including nationalizing AIG. He had bargaining power. It looks *very* bad to an outsider like me. Especially considering how bankruptcy works.
I'm with you. I think having banks that are nation-wide is very risky. Having that much cash in one place invites all sorts of corruption (the ultimate example being the federal government). My current bank is getting rather large through mergers and expansions and it has me worried. I'd support breaking banks into regional/state entities.
OK,
I'm talking about the point at which AIG was insolvent and the government stepped in. Chairman Bernanke said the were no "resolution procedures in place for systematically important non-bank firms". Couldn't Paulson/Bernanke have played a little hardball on behalf of the taxpayers and given a "haircut" by talking directly to CDS creditors?
fed link
Yeah, but there could have been some bargaining on the govt's part regarding a percentage of remuneration. I think one of the AIG creditors (foolishly) mentioned they'd accept something like 95 cents on the dollar. All debts were paid in full. It's easy to do that if you've got a blank check in your hip pocket from the govt. BTW, CDS's are *not* insurance. FWICT, they're just a device to allow CEO's to fool themselves and stockholders into thinking the company has no liabilities.
GS AIG
Really? I'd think the whole point would be preventing the tanking of the whole industry. Do you think that it would be possible for there to be a more even handed result? There's this thing called bankruptcy where creditors get a percentage of what's owed. Why is that not good enough for GS? AIG could have been protected (or not), the system could have been saved, and a certain company could have faced some real consequences. Don't see the rampant favoritism to one particular company yet?
I think it goes a little beyond AIG. The only difference between AIG and Goldman Sachs is that GS had the muscle to make its CDS's good at our expense.
Institutions are remunerated for their support. It's called "Indirect Costs" and Universities get a percentage of the grant. Universities compete for researchers and are *not* losing money on research. There may be an exception here or there with an influential researcher, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Your statement is wanton dissembling.
Wow. That's an outrageous statement. People who want to keep their own money and don't believe in that the climate is going to bake us all have a conflict of interest?
the average Joe who really doesn't want to change his life.
Generalize much? I submit that the "average Joe" has a million different things he'd rather do than that are probably more sensible than sending money to a bunch of bureaucrats who jet around to climate conferences, or "scientists" who seem to know nothing of the scientific method, or that behemoth of hypocrite's Al Gore.
Really? When you're objectively trying to find something such as a temperature signal it's common to fudge this way and that? BTW, the decline is *still* in that tree ring data, but is not being shown because when tree ring data supports a fudged temperature set, it's worth reporting to the IPCC. When it doesn't, there is some unknown force burying the AGW signal. Who are the denialists again?
Wrong. It was calibrated, but trended *down*. Trees don't make good thermometers.
Your comments about other indicators of "Global Warming" are *not* evidence. They are anecdotes. What people are in a fuss about is whether warming is natural vs. "we're all going to die in the next 100 years.". Try to speak to the *evidence* for catastrophic global warming and not muddy the issue.
How would you propose this power outage occur? What would prevent people from "fixing" it? Also, what exactly are you proposing that would stop our current agricultural system? Your comment is missing some realism IMO.
Exactly. Our civilisation is complex and fragile. It is easier to destroy our civilisation now than it was even 100 years ago. Any disruption could be long term, food and water are fundamental and shortages of them could destabilise advanced nations. But we could handle that. But if temperatures went over 4C say, then I think we would be struggling to keep civilisation together.
But the Earth has seen much worse. We haven't.
Remarkably negative thought process. IMO, We are more stable than ever. Think about your statement of 100 years ago. You'd really like to go back to life w/o antibiotics, modern vaccines, modern power grid, modern agriculture, FDA, etc. etc. ?? What's your plan for destroying civilization?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh. You were talking about *those* people. Good thing there aren't any of them on our side which is lily white ethically speaking. I'm glad that the ideologues at the IPCC can do my thinking for me and I don't have to worry about them doing anything unethical. They're scientists for gosh sakes!! That means we can trust them.
Um, No. I think this is a point that more objective people have been trying to make repeatedly. It *is* possible to read the ClimateGate letters in total and want an investigation of particular people/instituions completely independent of your thoughts on Anthropogenic Global Warming. To argue as above only makes you look like a nut.
Is Michael Mann the exclusive moderator of this thread?
You should actually read IPCC AR4. The "facts" you state above are not facts at all but are conjectures which the group of scientists have "90%" confidence in. There are already plenty of climate scientists who question those above statements, so I feel no need to do the same. Do have any *real* facts to bring to the argument? Or can we expect more confused rhetoric?
How pray tell was this modded insightful? A generalization/perjorative and little else. Where are my mod points when I need them? PLease somebody mod this down. The Gods of Objectivity are screaming for it.
Completely agree. People who only see the single side of the coin in regards to corporations are *really* just socialist sheeple. I'm thankful for and proud of the vast majority of corporate america. Those who aren't should move to the third world and forego the evil that is the american corporation.
Wow. Where are my mod points when I need them? Are there any adults that can mod this whole thread into oblivion? This is probably the worst thread I've read in quite some time, and that's saying something on /. Can someone at least meta-moderate this?
OMG!!! Who modded this Interesting? I'd think infinity Naive is the only thing that's appropriate.
Thanks for the link. :)
Well, I think we'll have to disagree a little on Bernanke's scorecard. He got us through the crisis, but some came out much better than others. Anyone with billions of dollars to lend could have done the same thing. I think a perceptive person would have recognized that you don't have to go around reimbursing bad debts at 100% just because you can. The current stir about the Fed could have been avoided if he would have given a few haircuts. He may soon get his own.
Well, Forgive me, because I don't know much about finance and the Fed, but Bernanke had other options other than the one taken didn't he? It seems he could have threatened doing a whole host of things including nationalizing AIG. He had bargaining power. It looks *very* bad to an outsider like me. Especially considering how bankruptcy works.
I'm with you. I think having banks that are nation-wide is very risky. Having that much cash in one place invites all sorts of corruption (the ultimate example being the federal government). My current bank is getting rather large through mergers and expansions and it has me worried. I'd support breaking banks into regional/state entities.
OK, I'm talking about the point at which AIG was insolvent and the government stepped in. Chairman Bernanke said the were no "resolution procedures in place for systematically important non-bank firms". Couldn't Paulson/Bernanke have played a little hardball on behalf of the taxpayers and given a "haircut" by talking directly to CDS creditors? fed link
Yeah, but there could have been some bargaining on the govt's part regarding a percentage of remuneration. I think one of the AIG creditors (foolishly) mentioned they'd accept something like 95 cents on the dollar. All debts were paid in full. It's easy to do that if you've got a blank check in your hip pocket from the govt. BTW, CDS's are *not* insurance. FWICT, they're just a device to allow CEO's to fool themselves and stockholders into thinking the company has no liabilities.
GS
AIG Really? I'd think the whole point would be preventing the tanking of the whole industry. Do you think that it would be possible for there to be a more even handed result? There's this thing called bankruptcy where creditors get a percentage of what's owed. Why is that not good enough for GS? AIG could have been protected (or not), the system could have been saved, and a certain company could have faced some real consequences. Don't see the rampant favoritism to one particular company yet?
But that would ruin the whole purpose of CDS's!! Where would a CEO be able to rat hole liabilities to improve the balance sheet!
I think it goes a little beyond AIG. The only difference between AIG and Goldman Sachs is that GS had the muscle to make its CDS's good at our expense.
Yeah, nice idea, but you'd need a legion of Paul Bunyan's to do that. Obama would probably chop his foot off on the first swing.
This will *never* happen. GS is far too powerful to let that happen. The AIG bailout was quite simply a giveaway to GS.
Institutions are remunerated for their support. It's called "Indirect Costs" and Universities get a percentage of the grant. Universities compete for researchers and are *not* losing money on research. There may be an exception here or there with an influential researcher, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Your statement is wanton dissembling.
Everyone has a conflict of interest.
Wow. That's an outrageous statement. People who want to keep their own money and don't believe in that the climate is going to bake us all have a conflict of interest?
the average Joe who really doesn't want to change his life.
Generalize much? I submit that the "average Joe" has a million different things he'd rather do than that are probably more sensible than sending money to a bunch of bureaucrats who jet around to climate conferences, or "scientists" who seem to know nothing of the scientific method, or that behemoth of hypocrite's Al Gore.
Really? When you're objectively trying to find something such as a temperature signal it's common to fudge this way and that? BTW, the decline is *still* in that tree ring data, but is not being shown because when tree ring data supports a fudged temperature set, it's worth reporting to the IPCC. When it doesn't, there is some unknown force burying the AGW signal. Who are the denialists again?
Wrong. It was calibrated, but trended *down*. Trees don't make good thermometers. Your comments about other indicators of "Global Warming" are *not* evidence. They are anecdotes. What people are in a fuss about is whether warming is natural vs. "we're all going to die in the next 100 years.". Try to speak to the *evidence* for catastrophic global warming and not muddy the issue.
How would you propose this power outage occur? What would prevent people from "fixing" it? Also, what exactly are you proposing that would stop our current agricultural system? Your comment is missing some realism IMO.
Exactly. Our civilisation is complex and fragile. It is easier to destroy our civilisation now than it was even 100 years ago. Any disruption could be long term, food and water are fundamental and shortages of them could destabilise advanced nations. But we could handle that. But if temperatures went over 4C say, then I think we would be struggling to keep civilisation together.
But the Earth has seen much worse. We haven't.
Remarkably negative thought process. IMO, We are more stable than ever. Think about your statement of 100 years ago. You'd really like to go back to life w/o antibiotics, modern vaccines, modern power grid, modern agriculture, FDA, etc. etc. ?? What's your plan for destroying civilization?