Say What?!
Foreign Policy has just published a list of its “top 100 global thinkers” and the winner is…
1. Ben Bernanke
for staving off a new Great Depression.
Chairman, Federal Reserve | Washington
The Zen-like chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve might not have topped the list solely for turning his superb academic career into a blueprint for action, for single-handedly reinventing the role of a central bank, or for preventing the collapse of the U.S. economy. But to have done all of these within the span of a few months is certainly one of the greatest intellectual feats of recent years. Not long ago a Princeton University professor writing paper after paper on the Great Depression, “Helicopter Ben” spent 2009 dropping hundreds of billions in bailouts seemingly from the skies, vigilantly tracking interest rates, and coordinating with counterparts across the globe. His key insight? The need for massive, damn-the-torpedoes intervention in financial markets. Winning over critics who have since praised his “radical” moves (including Nouriel Roubini, No. 4 on this list), he now faces an uphill battle in his bid for permanently expanded Fed powers. The radicalism is far from over.
Say what?!
Source:
The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers
Foreign Policy, December 2009
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,0
November 30th, 2009 at 10:48 am
The mass delusion we are seeing is almost unfathomable. Is there anything more that needs to be said?
November 30th, 2009 at 10:50 am
This marks “foreignpolicy.com” as a captive of the banking cartel and as an illegitimate source of information.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
In the words of that famous philosopher Charles Brown:
GOOD GRIEF!
November 30th, 2009 at 10:54 am
@montyhigh: Exactly. The people whose asses have been saved (the elite) are quite happy. Why wouldn’t they be? Everyone else? Not so much, but we clearly do not matter.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:54 am
The list is an “Influence-o-Meter,” not an endorsement of the quality of thought. Just another movers-and-shakers list cooked up by a mag to generate buzz and sell copies. Chillax.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:05 am
It says: “The 100 minds that mattered most “. Who is of the opinion that Bernanke *does not matter*? It’s one thing to say he’s been wrong, but the only thing that’s clearly delusional is suggesting that he’s been irrelevant.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Cut the guy some slack, please. The situation was (is) dire, nobody knew what to do and Bernanke acted. Criticize if you like but there are some times when you just have to take action. Acting like Monday morning quarterbacks feels good but we didn’t go through that trial by fire.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:09 am
@EDF: It seems you are afflicted with what some might call “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.
Questions courtesy of The Cunning Realist:
1. The TARP Inspector General recently disclosed that the New York Federal Reserve did not believe that AIG’s credit-default swap (CDS) counterparties posed a systemic financial risk. In Congressional testimony and elsewhere, you have stated repeatedly that AIG posed a systemic risk based partly on its CDS obligations [source: Bernanke's testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, 3/24/09]. Explain this apparent contradiction. What was your specific role in the decision to pay AIG’s counterparties 100 cents on the dollar?
2. On May 5, 2009, in front of the Joint Economic Committee, you said the following about the unemployment rate: “Currently, we don’t think it will get to 10 percent. Our current number is somewhere in the 9s” [source]. In November it hit 10.2%, and many economists predict it will go even higher. This is happening despite enormous fiscal and monetary stimulus that you previously said would help create jobs. What happened after your JEC testimony in May that caused your prediction to miss the mark?
3. It’s now widely accepted that loose monetary policy is at least partly to blame for the credit bubble and subsequent crash. You played an important role in that policy. For eight straight meetings of the FOMC, from June 2003 to May 2004, you voted to keep the Fed funds rate at 1%. But transcripts of recently-released FOMC meetings show you wanted the FOMC to consider cutting rates even further. In the August 12, 2003 meeting, with the Fed already at 1%, you said:
Despite the good news, I think it’s premature to conclude that we should not consider further rate cuts, if not at this meeting then at some time in the near future depending on how the data play out. [source: transcript of FOMC meeting on 8/12/03, page 63]
How much worse would the bubble and subsequent crash have been if you had gotten your way? What do your comments in that meeting imply about your ability to correctly time the reversal of the Fed’s current accommodative policy?
4. Forecasts are an important part of the Fed’s work. Monetary policy by nature depends on forecasts, making predictive ability an essential part of the job description for any Fed chairman. Yet your record of predictions, including the one about unemployment in (2) above, is questionable at best. Some examples [source]:
March 28, 2007: “The impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime markets seems likely to be contained.”
May 17, 2007: “We do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system.”
Feb. 28, 2008, on the potential for bank failures: “Among the largest banks, the capital ratios remain good and I don’t expect any serious problems of that sort among the large, internationally active banks that make up a very substantial part of our banking system.”
June 9, 2008: “The risk that the economy has entered a substantial downturn appears to have diminished over the past month or so.”
July 16, 2008: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are “adequately capitalized” and “in no danger of failing.”
Explain this pattern of terrible predictions and forecasts. What do they imply about your ability to conduct policy going forward? Is there some fatal flaw in your economic models or forecasting tools? Are you just winging it?
5. Derivatives such as credit-default swaps played an important role in the financial crisis, and they are central to the financial reforms currently being contemplated. During the Senate Banking Committee’s hearing in November 2005 to confirm you as Alan Greenspan’s successor, you had the following exchange with Senator Paul Sarbanes [source]:
SARBANES: Warren Buffett has warned us that derivatives are time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system. The Financial Times has said so far, there has been no explosion, but the risks of this fast growing market remain real. How do you respond to these concerns?
BERNANKE: I am more sanguine about derivatives than the position you have just suggested. I think, generally speaking, they are very valuable. They provide methods by which risks can be shared, sliced, and diced, and given to those most willing to bear them. They add, I believe, to the flexibility of the financial system in many different ways. With respect to their safety, derivatives, for the most part, are traded among very sophisticated financial institutions and individuals who have considerable incentive to understand them and to use them properly. The Federal Reserve’s responsibility is to make sure that the institutions it regulates have good systems and good procedures for ensuring that their derivatives portfolios are well managed and do not create excessive risk in their institutions.
How did you get it so wrong?
6. An important factor in the financial crisis (and a large part of the ultimate cost to taxpayers) was the implicit government guarantee of the GSEs. In part because of decisions you made, there is now an explicit government guarantee of every large firm on Wall Street. Has moral hazard increased or decreased over the past year?
7. Via the FDIC, the American public now explicitly guarantees the bonds of Wall Street firms where bonuses are surging and individual employees can be paid millions of dollars a year. What is your opinion on the morality of this guarantee?
8. The importance you place on the output gap is well known. You have often cited “excess slack” in the economy to justify loose monetary policy, arguing that a large output gap lowers the risk of inflation. But economists such as Allan Meltzer have noted that there are “lots of examples of countries with underutilized resources and high inflation. Brazil in the 1970s and 1980s” [source]. Moreover, in a new paper dated December 2009 and titled “Has the Recent Real Estate Bubble Biased the Output Gap?”, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis state the following:
Because this (predicted) output gap is so large, several analysts have concluded that monetary policy can remain very accommodative without fear of inflationary repercussions. We argue instead that standard output gap measures may be severely biased by the bubble in real estate prices that, according to many, started around 2002 and burst in 2007.
They conclude with a warning that seems directed at you: “We offer a word of caution to policymakers: Policies based on point estimates of the output gap may not rest on solid ground.”
Please comment on 1) Allan Meltzer’s point and 2) the St. Louis Fed’s research paper. Why do you continue to put such a high priority on the output gap?
9. In a scenario in which unemployment remains uncomfortably high, but the dollar continues to fall and commodities including oil and gold continue to rise, what would the Fed do? At what point do market signals take priority over hard-to-measure statistics like the output gap?
10. The Fed has a dual mandate: maximum employment and price stability. But unemployment is at its highest level in decades. And in early and mid-2008, with oil at $150 a barrel and prices of basic staples skyrocketing, opinion polls showed that inflation was the public’s highest concern, even more so than jobs or the housing market [source]. Why has the Fed failed so badly in its mandate? Is employment an appropriate objective for monetary policy? Should the Fed have a single mandate of price stability?
11. In February 2009, Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Fed, said that the Fed needed to fight back against the argument that its liquidity efforts would eventually lead to higher inflation and higher interest rates, calling the notion “ludicrous” [source]. Since then, the dollar has fallen precipitously, oil has almost doubled in price, and gold has surged to all-time highs. Do you share your colleague’s view on inflation?
12. What does the surge in gold mean to you? At what price level would it begin to worry you, if it doesn’t already? Does gold have any impact on the Fed’s policy deliberations?
13. Why does the Fed insist on waiting five years before it releases transcripts of FOMC meetings to the public? Shouldn’t someone tasked with evaluating your performance and voting on your reconfirmation have access to transcripts from late 2008 and early 2009?
14. Has the Fed ever had an internal debate about how monetary policy contributes to geopolitical tensions via the rising oil prices caused by a falling dollar?
15. Before the financial crisis there was a widespread sense, especially on Wall Street trading desks, that the stock market was strangely resilient. This encouraged excessive risk-taking in various types of assets. Do you have direct or indirect knowledge of the Federal Reserve or any government entity or proxy ever intervening to support the stock market (or any individual stock) via futures or in any other way? If yes, who decides the timing of such intervention and with what criteria? How is it funded? Which Wall Street firm handles the orders, and who sees them before they are executed?
November 30th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Bernanke was dealt a bad hand by his incompetent predecessor Greenspan.
Bernanke was very bold and innovative responding to this crisis. He deserves a Nobel Price, not Obama.
Crony Geithner is completely incompetent and irresponsible. He must be replaced.
I would like to see Jamie Dimon to take Geithner’s position (unfortunately Summers is the same rotten fruit as Geithner)
November 30th, 2009 at 11:21 am
To EDF: Boy is that going to hurt in the morning. Better “rub some dirt on it”.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
@gate: So how do you explain that Ben was Greenie’s right hand man who endorsed most, if not all, of his policies? Dimon, ANOTHER Wall Street insider, for Treasury Secretary. Gee, that’s all we’ll need for the fleecing of the Sheeple to be complete.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I am utterly disgusted about this. I was born beyond the Iron Curtain and grew up there during the first years of my conscious life. This reminds me so much how ideologues were celebrated back then. The difference is, here and today, they do it voluntarily. Somehow I am tempted to raise the provocative question, what is more totalitarian, when the masses and the published opinion embrace ideology, because they are forced to do so, or when they don’t even notice it anymore that they are doing it, because they have been ideologically fully assimilated.
rc
November 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Hey rootless, you mind lending a hand unloading these seedpods out of the back of the truck with me? Once you’re assimilated, everything is cool. LOL!
“Zen-like”, I love it. This whole episode reminds me of the fable of the Taoist Farmer.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
@rc: ideologies contain unexamined elements. “Memes” might be a better word to describe the aggregate of mindless sound-bites and knee-jerk responses that have programmed our thinking. A wise person taught me a long time ago that human reality is a consensus reality. We agree to collectively gloss over certain inconvenient things or sweep them under the carpet so that we can function together. Propaganda can’t fill bellies but it can teach people that the ethnic minority down the street is responsible for their suffering.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:56 am
EDF Says:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:06 am
I agree completely.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I had no idea Bernanke’s mom ran a foreign policy magazine. Ya’ learn something new every day.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Shorter EDF:
They had to rob us blind, or we’d have lost money.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Climategate Says:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Do you think Dimon will do what is in the best interests of the nation? Or could we end up with someone who is far more savvy than Geithner to protect the interests in the Investment Banking community, such as maintaining TBTF institutions, etc. ?
November 30th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
FP = False Perspective
November 30th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
@ Climategate:
I have a quote for you from Eisenhower’s famous “Beware The Military-Industrial Complex” farewell speech.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/article_103.shtml
November 30th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
@ Mannwich
Re: “So how do you explain that Ben was Greenie’s right hand”
I am judging Bernanke as the Fed Chairman. It is irrelevant what Bernanke was before he became the chair — Greenspan’s hand or Greenspan’s toe.
It is easy for idiots like Roubini (btw, he is a gold standard of an idiot definition) to Monday morning quarterback Bernanke. Any idiot can Monday morning quarterback a pilot who managed to land a badly malfunctioning plane safely, but none of these critics would be able to land that plane.
Re: Geithner
Whom would you select to replace Geithner and not to disturb the markets?
The markets would be comfortable with Dimon. His moral standards are a mile higher than Geithner’s.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
jamie is the largest holder of derivatives, something like 20%, yeah he’s the guy you want in there
November 30th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
@Climategate:
I would say one of the ideological delusions is that the plane has already landed safely.
rc
November 30th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Monday morning quarterback Bernanke. Any idiot can Monday morning quarterback a pilot who managed to land a badly malfunctioning plane safely, but none of these critics would be able to land that plane.
Actually, those guys were telling us how the plane was going to crash Friday night. Do you remember Friday night? That is when Greenspan and his pals thought it was cool to run the engines so hot that they blew up….just like the manual said they would
November 30th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
@bsneath
“Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I’ve been critical of global warming and am persona non grata.”
— Dr. William Gray (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction, in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)
“Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.”
Petr Chylek (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland’s glaciers are melting.)
“Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado. After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
November 30th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I’m not sure who said it first, @Mannwich or @montyhigh, but I concur:
“Exactly. The people whose asses have been saved (the elite) are quite happy. Why wouldn’t they be? Everyone else? Not so much, but we clearly do not matter.”
From Greenspan forward if the goal was to steal as many golden eggs as possible, regardless of killing the goose, than the last decade or so has been incomprehensibly successful if you were in on the heist. Paraphrashing a comedian, if you’re one of the many poor SOBs outside the dome fighting over a Snicker’s wrapper, not so much.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
@Climategate:
Are the quotes you just have cited supposed to prove something? If yes what exactly?
rc
November 30th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Using one’s scientific expertise and reputation in order the scare people is the key to personal wealth in our economy. That’s why so many former students of economics and finance are flocking to the sciences.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
@Marcus Aurelius:
For a moment of a nanosecond I actually thought you were serious. Then it made click. This was a very nice ironic statement.
rc
November 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
There’s plenty o’ response from the horse’s mouths regarding “Climategate.”
Here’s one:
http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4651
There are many others, if anyone (cough, cough) would be interested in seeing them. Just use the Google.
Personally, I don’t believe in science. Not even medicine. Every time I get an x-ray, I have it delivered to me personally, so that I can confirm or dispute the Radiologist’s interpretation of them. Of course, the radiologist is trying to get rich by scaring me. He’s really not an expert. It’s a conspiracy.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
rc:
Ha! Made you look! ; )
November 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I interpret Climategate’s quotes to show how policymakers are engaging in the practice of “The End Justifies the Means”.
If you feel comfortable with this practice, so be it.
I personally do not want to live in a nation where such a lack of integrity and honesty is accepted by its population or is practiced by its leaders.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Marcus Aurelius Says:
You may be interested in reading about Michael Mann in the words of the U. S. Committee on Energy and Commerce Report (Wegman report)
“Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.” – Wegman Report, 2006
November 30th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
If you feel comfortable with those who are scientifically unqualified and motivated by maintenance of the status quo — especially in light of the comments on the alleged “conspiracy” made by the alleged “consirators” since the “conspiracy” was manufactured — then have at it.
I guess ocean acidification or gender-bending fish (due to petrochemicals used in plastics) aren’t real either.
Industry = good. Science = bad.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
@Marcus Aurelius:
The irony is that exactly the same people who don’t accept any shred of evidence by scientists, however well documented, tested, and reproducible it is, as long as it is in support of the theory of global warming, present a few quote-mined, ambiguous phrases out of context from some personal email conversation as smoking gun or ultimate “proof” for the assertion that a whole scientific community of thousands of scientists world-wide would have founded their results published in many scientific papers over several decades on fraud and other scientific misconduct. Talking about different standards applied depending on the ideological agenda.
rc
November 30th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
This is very interesting, and it involves direct responses, in blog format, by some of those whose emails were hacked:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
November 30th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
@climategate:
Please provide also the sources for all the quotes. Only for one an about valid source is given. Where are the other quotes documented? I don’t trust any alleged quotes, for which not even the sources are given, particularly if it comes from people who claim there wasn’t any evidence for the validity of the global warming theory.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
@ rootless_cosmopolitan
Re: “Are the quotes you just have cited supposed to prove something? If yes what exactly?”
I was responding to bsneath. It has nothing to do with Bernanke.
It was about my name — Climategate (bigger that Watergate scandal, only the mainstream liberal media refuses to cover it because all of them have been a part of it – they do not want to cover about themselves being an accessory to Global Warming Scam.
Global warming is not science. It is an ideology that is blind fundamentalism, unrelated to scientific facts. “Scientists” use it to milk the taxpayers for grants. Alarmists as Al Gore use it to siphon public funds to their bank accounts. Politicians use it as a cover to borrow and to spend taxpayer money , to build new bureaucracies, to achieve their social and political goals, and to pose as environmental saviors without having to face the consequences of their actions.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Climategate:
Please show the data and methodology you relied on to support your theory.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Keep in mind that someone received a prize in Copenhagen recently.
Which is a hint at who or what has their hand up the sock puppets.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
@Marcus: I think you’ll be waiting a bit on that request.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
@climategate:
“Global warming is not science. It is an ideology that is blind fundamentalism, unrelated to scientific facts. ”
So you claim that thousands of scientists world-wide who have published results from their research on climate change in hundreds or thousands of papers in scientific journals over the last decades haven’t actually founded their results on true scientific research, but mainly on falsification of data and other scientific misconduct within a global warming conspiracy.
On what is your judgment founded? Do you have any proof for these accusations? Certainly not. Who is the real blind believer and fundamentalist ideologue here, then?
I call these kind of unproven accusation made by you and your likes plainly and simply libel.
rc
November 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
@rc: The handle says it all. Why even bother debating such a person for it can never be done in good faith?
November 30th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
It appears that EDF subscribes to the “No Banker Left Behind” mantra.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
No one knows at this point the extent to which climate science is a “science” or a “religion” or a “political pathway to enforce conservation and redistribution.”
Climategate is bringing about a consensus in the scientific community that the work of climate scientists needs to be transparent and subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The release and review of climate data will either increase the confidence in the scientific effort to date or it will force a reevaluation. Either way we will get towards the truth. Thus the recent events are positive.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
@bsneath:
“No one knows at this point the extent to which climate science is a “science” or a “religion” or a “political pathway to enforce conservation and redistribution.”
On what is this statement founded? How do you know that “no one” knows? Aren’t you just extrapolating from your own missing knowledge to others? What has prevented you from knowing?
“Climategate is bringing about a consensus in the scientific community that the work of climate scientists needs to be transparent and subjected to rigorous scrutiny.”
This implicitly presumes the assertion there hasn’t been transparency so far with respect to the essential data and methods used by climate scientists and and it wasn’t possible to independently test the results from climate research. Is this assertion really based on facts? I think it’s bogus.
rc
November 30th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I agree. Fault him you may for not steering us away from the precipice, but once over, he was the only one that had given any thought about what to do as seen by the speed with which he acted. Everyone else was as clueless afterwards as they were before.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
rc,
From what I have read, I do not think it is bogus. Further it appears that public opinion is moving in that direction. Their is a lot of distrust of the science and politics behind global warming.
The University of East Anglia which is the primary British repository of global warming research just recently announced that it would release all of their underlying data which is a good start.
I have been involved in public policy my entire career and I find it not at all beyond the realm of possibilities to conclude that global warming science has been corrupted. Not necessarily in a “vast global conspiracy” way, but rather the result of how and by whom global warming research studies have been funded and the biases of those awarding the funds.
There are very few “good guys” and “bad guys” in this debate. Most on both sides of the issue are genuine in their beliefs. But the data and the models have not been transparent to all scientists and suspicion is the result.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
@bsneath:
“From what I have read, I do not think it is bogus. Further it appears that public opinion is moving in that direction. Their is a lot of distrust of the science and politics behind global warming.”
Public opinion has never been a good criteria for truth. So what is this supposed to prove?
There are plenty of data available even in the public domain, raw data, processed data, also the code with which they have been processed. The code of climate models is available. Not all data are public, though. Usually it has to do with some commercial interests or policies of institutions by which scientist are bound, but usually not invented by the scientists. This doesn’t even mean that other scientists won’t get access to the data, if they request it. Not saying that everything was perfect.
“But the data and the models have not been transparent to all scientists and suspicion is the result.”
And how much of these suspicions are based on rumors and mis-representation by the so-called “climate sceptics”? Please could you make this accusation specific? Who has really been prevented from independently test the results from what significant climate study by denying scientists access to data, code and by not publishing the methodology of the research?
I rather suspect it never will be satisfying for many of the “climate sceptics”. Even if every data set was publicly available, they just would keep moving the goalpost.
rc
November 30th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
AND if BB is #1 than the U.S. is in #2. This will surely help him get re-elected, uh…reappointed. I can see citizens in the streets shouting, 4 more years, 4 more years! Hey, if they gave a Nobel Peace Prize to Obama anything is possible…
November 30th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
@rootless_cosmopolitan
Re: ”I call these kind of unproven accusation made by you and your likes plainly and simply libel.”
I do not want to spam Barry’s blog with multiple pages of evidence.
I have posted some of the evidence in response to Winston Munn drinking “peer-reviewed” Cool Aid.
Please read all my responses and read the articles (click on the links).
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/food-stamps-at-record-highs/#comments
November 30th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
@Climategate:
You apparently think some youtube clip where other “climate sceptics” claim something, other unproven unspecific claims and quotes, often w/o even any sources, strawman arguments with regards to climate science, or claiming a number of scientists has a certain opinion constituts evidence for your believe that I had (apparently correctly) summarized, about the alleged vast climate conspiracy. This is this game where the unproven assertions by one “climate sceptic” are being quoted and serve as “evidence” for the assertions of the next “climate sceptic”.
rc
November 30th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
@rc
When climate history is rewritten and scientists cannot find out why, there are credibility problems.
http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif
When raw data is “lost” there are credibility problems.
Climate change data dumped
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
When scientists intentionally withhold information from the public, there are credibility problems.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
November 30th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
@rootless_cosmopolitan
Please read the emails (even a second grader can see what the “scientist” were doing)
And please use your prefrontal cortex (not the primitive parts of your brain as Amygdala that is responsible for instinctual emotions [also when it is stimulated electrically, animals respond with aggression]
Think about it (with prefrontal cortex please):
Lets assume that there is global warming and it is secondary to industrial carbon dioxide emissions (this is what after wasting billions of taxpayer money these “scientists”, “alarmists”, and the liberal politicians are telling us).
~186 billion tons of CO2 enters earth’s atmosphere each year from three main sources:
~90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans
~90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants
~6 billion tons are from industrial carbon dioxide emissions
Even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting or completely eliminating industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have no effect on global climate.
It just does not make any sense what the liberals are forcing on us; therefore, there are other reasons motivating these progressive liberals: use it as an excuse to expand government, use it as an instrument of social and cultural change, use it as an instrument of wealth redistribution and to raise taxes, use it as an instrument to control the economy through the manipulation and interference in the free markets, use it as an excuse to participate in international organizations that usurp American sovereignty, use it as an excuse to undermine the inherent freedoms of individual citizens, use it as an excuse to to impact every facet of American life, and simple greed and money.
(And if you disagree with them, the liberals will attack you, label you as a denier and enemy of the planet or an enemy of the people or a racist.)
As a rule of thumb, start with follow the money.
Climategate: Follow the Money
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion
December 1st, 2009 at 1:14 am
@rootless_cosmopolitan
The Climate Science Isn’t Settled
By RICHARD S. LINDZEN, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion
December 1st, 2009 at 2:00 am
@Climategate:
You obviously think you can make your point by name calling and ad hominem assertions. It only shows how desperate you are.
rc
December 1st, 2009 at 8:18 am
Climategate – your ideas are dead. go away.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:18 am
The points Climategate is making with his “prefrontal cortex” statements are valid although when aimed against a specific individual they may seem offensive.
Humans generally think and react based on the more primitive but dominant emotional sectors of the brain. An example is how fear and greed drive stock trading.
When applied to CO2-based global warming, many people emotionally want CO2 to be the cause of global warming because this conforms with their belief that the human species should conserve resources, stop the spread of urban sprawl, discourage private autos and encourage public transit.
Thus, it is quite possible that climate science has been “directed” towards CO2 as the main cause because of the strong, emotive desire for it to be so by those who awarded grants and performed peer reviews.
Some of the “pre-frontal cortex” facts are:
1) CO2 is a rare element in the atmosphere comprising only 3.8 out of very 10,000 molecules of the atmosphere.
2) The “greenhouse gas” physical properties of CO2 by themselves cannot cause runaway, devastating global warming. Rather the climate models must incorporate “positive feedbacks”, by CO2 drives increased humidity and cloud cover which ultimately drive the runaway AGW. These positive feedbacks are controversial in the scientific community, are not fully understood and may be offset by negative feedbacks that also are not well understood.
Other variables might that play a greater role in climate change than peer reviewed and accepted studies to date have allowed to be determined.
An example is Urban Heat Island effects – Dense urban areas are much hotter than rural areas. This can have two effects on climate science. First, increased global urbanization will play a direct role in global warming from heat radiated off of buildings, asphalt, lack of vegatation, etc. Secondly, many of the land based temperature gages that originally were in rural locations just outside of the urban heat islands, now are located within them because of expanding urbanization. Thus they give false readings of increased temperatures unless they are adjusted and the adjustments are subject to scientific judgment and manipulation.
There would be cognitive dissonance if a scientific study were to conclude that urban areas are a significant contributor to global warming because a basic desire of most environmentalists and urban planners is to promote dense urban development.
Other variables that may have been under researched/emphasized are solar radiation cycles, solar wind, global land use patterns e.g. forests converted to agriculture, ocean cycles, etc.
Also, many skeptics believe that the consequences of global warming have been portrayed only in the negative. What is not revealed they feel is the increases in food production, the ability for man and animals to adapt and migrate as temperatures slowly change.
So, all we ask is that you look at climate change with an objective eye and reach your own conclusions after reviewing both sides of the issue rather than accepting the conventional wisdom of a science that potentially has been corrupted by well meaning but nevertheless scientifically dishonest individuals.
I would encourage you to at least read the article by Professor Lindzen from MIT. He is a distinguished professor whose comments you will be more likely to accept than those of bloggers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion
@mknowles: Climategate’s ideas are alive and well. He should not “go away”. Rather you should open your mind to take in what he has presented and then rebut if you have facts to the contrary. To say “go away” simply implies that your head hurts because Climategate has presented you with a fact that runs contrary to your strongly head belief system and that you cannot rebut.