Global Warming is over.

[nando]

Hey, while we're ignoring billions of pounds of plastic waste in the ocean and other crazy shit directly effecting the environment and human health, why don't we cut down on gamers. Those assholes are causing global warming, which could lead to the oceans rising, which would mean we would have billions of tons of plastic in our beach resorts and then might actually give a shit.

http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/eu_could_cripple_future_graphics_cards.html

Looks like their ideas are working!

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/eu-leadership-on-climate-change-masks-imports-role-20121026-288yz.html

The sad thing is that if they're confronted with these figures, the easiest way to fix them is more tax, higher import duties and/or restrictions, probably based on some idiotic list of things they think cause emissions during manf.

I agree with you on all of this (especially the part about the EU basically exporting their carbon emissions, then claiming they hit their targets), but it really has nothing to do with whether global warming is happening or not.

EU over-regulation has ruined lots of things. like auto designs. but that doesn't have any bearing on the facts of the climate, only that your political system needs work (like ours does).

[nando]

shit, rwh believes fees matter more than performance LOL
what else do you need to know?

I guess it depends on how high your fees are and how good your performance is. what is it, 97% of managed funds can't beat a market index? Most can't even match one. That's why heeter doesn't want to own funds with a management fee, because that comes directly out of your income. why pay a 1% fee for a 5% return when you can get a 7% return on a market index for basically nothing?

I organize all of my 401k's by return and fees. it was only recently that they started making it easy to find what the fees were (I always knew, but it was buried, most people would only look at returns). It's a merril lynch account and basically they're pretty worthless, but I get an instant 100% return thanks to company matching so it's still worth investing in.

if you're good enough to earn your fees, that's great, but you'd be in a very small percentage of managers who can actually do it.

also, it has nothing to do with the topic.

[rwh11385]

Hey, while we're ignoring billions of pounds of plastic waste in the ocean and other crazy shit directly effecting the environment and human health, why don't we cut down on gamers. Those assholes are causing global warming, which could lead to the oceans rising, which would mean we would have billions of tons of plastic in our beach resorts and then might actually give a shit.

I agree with you on all of this (especially the part about the EU basically exporting their carbon emissions, then claiming they hit their targets), but it really has nothing to do with whether global warming is happening or not.

EU over-regulation has ruined lots of things. like auto designs. but that doesn't have any bearing on the facts of the climate, only that your political system needs work (like ours does).

Who said that people shouldn't be working to remove trash from the oceans, or doing something to prevent plastic from entering the ocean in the first place? Poor argument.

You know, some people focus on creating solutions and fixing problems instead of spending all of their time trying to fight science. People like graduates of CorvallisBMW's alma mater: http://www.agilyx.com/our-technology/

http://www.agilyx.com/media-room/press-releases/agilyx-obtains-25%C2%A0million-series-c%C2%A0financing.php#more-197

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/startup-turns-landfill-bound-plastics-back-into-oil/11477

Agilyx Corporation announced today it has secured a new round of Series C funding worth $25 million, spearheaded by new lead investor Keating Capital and joined by existing investors Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, Saffron Hill Ventures, Waste Management, Total Energy Ventures International, an affiliate of Total S.A., Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital and Reference Capital. Agilyx is the first company to economically convert difficult to recycle waste plastic into synthetic crude oil

Turning trash to crude seems pretty cool. And would certainly help people from throwing it away, and give a reason to extract it from the ocean instead of just to clean up.

As nando said, none of your argument disproves that humans are causing global warming, only distracting from the discussion subject by interjecting a new topic. It also attempts to make the claim that AGW people in general are all bad for attacking computer hardware just because some are.

Distracting from the subject at hand is classic red herring.
And attacking all those who follow the notion that humans have an influence on global warming by highlighting the actions of a small group who want to take away gaming systems is fallacy of composition.

I would like you warming tards to explain how restricting graphic card performance is going to save the planet.

Another red herring mixed with ad honinem, and inclusion of a derogatory term. Good job at showing how illogical your argument is.

[rwh11385]

rwh, you forgot to address his third link so I took that upon myself.

Nah, I quoted a portion of it that showed the writer knew nothing about statistics and suffered from horribly bad math skills. He tried to say that dividing the yes votes within the subset by the quantity of the subset was wrong, and then divided the yes within the subset by the total population to get his 2.38% number. (This number is not just bolded but pulled out to a side-quote.) However, the number of yes votes for the total pollution for question 2 is clearly shown as 82%. He also then is ignorant of typical online survey response rates and attempts to assume that everyone who didn't respond had to have not believing in AGW so he counted them as "No" votes and divided the yes of the climate scientist subset by the total number of survey invites, which is beyond moronic. Also being ignorant of statistics and referencing such a bad criticism as a source is also highlighting how clueless gwb is on the subject.

Arguments or criticism based on ignorance or false premises are not good ones. But that's what people rely on when their argument doesn't have legitimate merit.

[rwh11385]

shit, rwh believes fees matter more than performance LOL
what else do you need to know?

Wow. It's like you never admit when you've been proven wrong and just hop to the next logical fallacy. You know, when you are not busying dodging questions.

Attacking the unrelated beliefs of an opponent to try to disprove the argument at hand is ad hominem. My views on investing have no relevance to the science of human's influence on global warming.

But you also alluded to an argument in which I displayed that the majority of actively managed funds do worse after accounting for their fees than index funds. Again, instead of responding when you've been shown wrong, you simply ignored it.

The assumption that you used was that actively managed funds provide for a superior net return which is flawed, especially since the numbers show that the fees will deteriorate any possible advantage of skill over time. In fact, once you account for the survivorship bias, the performance of actively managed funds are dismal.

I guess it depends on how high your fees are and how good your performance is. what is it, 97% of managed funds can't beat a market index? Most can't even match one. That's why heeter doesn't want to own funds with a management fee, because that comes directly out of your income. why pay a 1% fee for a 5% return when you can get a 7% return on a market index for basically nothing?

I organize all of my 401k's by return and fees. it was only recently that they started making it easy to find what the fees were (I always knew, but it was buried, most people would only look at returns). It's a merril lynch account and basically they're pretty worthless, but I get an instant 100% return thanks to company matching so it's still worth investing in.

if you're good enough to earn your fees, that's great, but you'd be in a very small percentage of managers who can actually do it.

also, it has nothing to do with the topic.

The 97% number is related to actively managed bond funds IIRC. But the idea is consistent - paying for someone to play with your money does not necessarily mean that the results will be improved. That is a poor assumption that gwb includes in his argument.

His favorite economist / mutual fund guy has lost people money when the cheapest index fund has made a good amount, and the clients have lost out on the fees to boot. His argument was that Hussman didn't work on commission. But rational people would see that his goal was to sell his fund which made him money via fees, regardless of whether he performed well or not.

And yes, when gwb is beat in an argument, he jumps to the next subject.

[Fusion]

ad honinem, and inclusion of a derogatory term.

Let's get one thing about that out of the way first.

Retard math.

Idiot.

you sound like an idiot

your retarded ass ... You're an idiot.

the tinfoil-wearing idiot everyone has labeled you as

No, you cannot make up how much of an imbecile you are.

you are a moron ... you are an idiot

you acted like a douche ... you sound like a fucking asshole

And all of these apply to you if you aren't able to see the connection between science assembled to fit the needs of a political agenda. Even the new laws are based off of data decades old. They don't "update" a green ideology based on new data. Their laws will never be updated to new data that may or may not be important.
Not to mention the apparent fraud they spew when their agenda doesn't go according to plans.

[rwh11385]

Either way, I'm enjoying the entertainment.

If anyone wants me to make and send them a joshh/Fusion/gwb logical fallacy bingo board, I can. Then we can make their poor arguments and fallacies used into a game.

Possible boxes

Any of the three:
Make an strawman attack - telling the opponent what the opponent's argument is (which is slightly different so easily to criticize) then saying it's unbelievable.
False dilemma - building the premise that there are only two possibilies, that the world is black and white and you are either for or against anything. This is especially used to make the claim that everyone is a stupid liberal or hippie if they don't deny AGW or don't make ridiculous arguments about the administration.
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer instead of the argument
Argument from Consequences - The major fallacy of arguing that something cannot be true because if it were the consequences would be unacceptable. (E.g., "Global climate change cannot be caused by human burning of fossil fuels, because if it were, switching to non-polluting energy sources would bankrupt American industry.")
Argument from Ignorance - The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true).
Argument from Motives - The fallacy of declaring a standpoint or argument invalid solely because of potential motives of the one making the claim.
Begging the Question - Falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the same statement in different words.
Blind Loyalty - The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (an expert, parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth or above one's own reason and conscience. [The assumption is that people who aren't Fusion or gwb don't think for themselves and just following what they are told to think]
Guilt by Association - The fallacy of trying to refute or condemn someone's standpoint, arguments or actions by evoking the negative ethos of those with whom one associates or a collective to which he or she belongs. A form of Ad Hominem Argument.
The Paralysis of Analysis - A postmodern fallacy that, since all data is never in, no legitimate decision can ever be made and any action should always be delayed until forced by circumstances. A corruption of the argument from logos.
Reductionism - (also, Oversimplifying, Sloganeering): The fallacy of deceiving an audience by giving simple answers or slogans in response to complex questions, especially when appealing to less educated or unsophisticated audiences.
Slippery Slope - (also, the Domino Theory): The common fallacy that "one thing inevitably leads to another.
Hasty generalization - fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case, and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena.
Overwhelming exception - It is a generalization that is accurate, but comes with one or more qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.
Ad nauseam - repeating a flawed argument in the attempt to make it valid or more powerful
Cherry picking - is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. [Like referring to south sea ice while ignoring total ice mass and ice in the north]

gwb:
Shifting the Onus of Proof - When your opponent makes a claim, provides no evidence for it, and then expects you to find evidence of it. Your opponent is making the claim, so he should logically have to provide evidence. Shifting the onus (or burden) of proof to you is a fallacy and a very low tactic to engage in. [Most comments he ever makes doesn't include facts to back it up]
Appeal to authority - In the unemployment thread, no other person's view matter because he is a financial advisor.
Appeal to wealth - gwb's loves to try to overpower younger members who in an era of life generally have less and force them into submission by repeatedly challenging them to put money on the table to have an argument. Being older and having more wealth does not mean one is right.
The Complex Question - The fallacy of demanding a direct answer to a question that cannot be answered without first analyzing or challenging the basis of the question itself.
The Half Truth - A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of telling the truth but deliberately omitting important key details in order to falsify the larger picture and support a false conclusion
Moving the goal posts - informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after a goal has been scored, the goalposts are moved farther to discount the attempt.

Vdubin and others:
Appeal to the masses / Bandwagon / Argument from Common Sense / Argumentum ad populum- , The fallacy of arguing that because "everyone" supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right. [Such and such is believed by the public, so Obama must be Muslim!]
Big Lie Technique - The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.

joshh and others in the CFA / gay marriage thread:
Appeal to tradition - Keeping things the way they have always been.

[rwh11385]

Let's get one thing about that out of the way first.

And all of these apply to you if you aren't able to see the connection between science assembled to fit the needs of a political agenda. Even the new laws are based off of data decades old. They don't "update" a green ideology based on new data. Their laws will never be updated to new data that may or may not be important.
Not to mention the apparent fraud they spew when their agenda doesn't go according to plans.

I definitely get frustrated the stupidity of yours and others poor arguments and bad math and admit I include some ad hominem. But the focus is on your incorrect math, poor logic, or poor understanding of subjects you want to discuss. Calling someone an idiot doesn't invalidate their claim, but one might just be calling them that in addition to stating why their argument is poor or false. I showed your math skills were horrid repeatedly and then called you an idiot, the basis of the argument wasn't name-calling but proving out your understanding of math was flawed.

Argument of motive fallacy.

[gwb72tii]

I stopped reading when you failed to respond to what I posted and merely tried to repeat the same material through different links as though that would in some way validate your delusions as to what is factual in climate science, it has not.



I'd go back and quote all the times you questioned the credibility of climate science due to corruption to explain how blatantly hypocritical you are but there isn't enough time in a day for that so I'll leave it upon you admit that yourself.

Both sides may have corruption sure (speculative, on both ends)...but which side stands to personally earn billions off the propagation and acceptance of AGW denial and which side has the overwhelming majority of academia on their side? Again, I'll leave it to you to figure this one out yourself...perhaps utilize that common sense you've referenced a few times in this thread. Dig deep, I'm sure you'll find a little bit if you try hard enough.

rwh, you forgot to address his third link so I took that upon myself. First I checked on the writer of whatever piece of literature he posted...didn't have to dig very far to find that he's a nobody with no credentials to speak of whatsoever. Excellent links you've provided us with gwb, your posts get better and better. Perhaps you can create an economics thread and link to an article from Elmo about the importance of sharing if you want to stick to your style of posting laughable content.

well then i'll throw it back to you cale
show me a credible poll that shows the majority of climate scientists agree with he AGW hypothesis.
let me help you. there aren't any.
so get over the bullshit argument about consensus, majority etc ok? there isn't any and there never has been.
and show me any skeptic who's making the big bucks please, because all of the funding on AGW goes to the publicly funded group, which has to be close to a trillion dollars by now. this is such a weak argument its laughable. you really want to make money studying climate science? jump on the band wagon, claim you are a nobel award recipient, falsify data to produce a hockey stick, and rake it in.
the fact you, rwh, and others can't see any issue with any of the AGW scientists, their manipulation of data, bogus nobel awards etc bankrupts your arguments.

[gwb72tii]

oh, and fusion, nice quotes from the master demeanor, rwh
its how he tries to win arguments, which really reflects on him

[Kershaw]

ahahahahah

[gwb72tii]

Wow. It's like you never admit when you've been proven wrong and just hop to the next logical fallacy. You know, when you are not busying dodging questions.

Attacking the unrelated beliefs of an opponent to try to disprove the argument at hand is ad hominem. My views on investing have no relevance to the science of human's influence on global warming.

But you also alluded to an argument in which I displayed that the majority of actively managed funds do worse after accounting for their fees than index funds. Again, instead of responding when you've been shown wrong, you simply ignored it.

The assumption that you used was that actively managed funds provide for a superior net return which is flawed, especially since the numbers show that the fees will deteriorate any possible advantage of skill over time. In fact, once you account for the survivorship bias, the performance of actively managed funds are dismal.





The 97% number is related to actively managed bond funds IIRC. But the idea is consistent - paying for someone to play with your money does not necessarily mean that the results will be improved. That is a poor assumption that gwb includes in his argument.

His favorite economist / mutual fund guy has lost people money when the cheapest index fund has made a good amount, and the clients have lost out on the fees to boot. His argument was that Hussman didn't work on commission. But rational people would see that his goal was to sell his fund which made him money via fees, regardless of whether he performed well or not.

And yes, when gwb is beat in an argument, he jumps to the next subject.

i never claimed "paying someone to play with your money" means better results.
its that fees are the least important factor in making money.
where you money is invested is first, what assets you own.
like since 1998 bonds have killed stocks for returns, yes even vanguard with a .19% expense ratio
want more proof? look at all the hedge funds out there. like mutual funds only a few outperform a bogus index like the S&P500, but their fees are huge. i'd gladly pay david einhorn a 5% fee and share 25% of all profits above a 10% return. no problem.
or to put it another way, would you rather pay 2% and get a 10% return, or .19% and get a 8% return?
vanguard harping on expense ratios is a marketing gimmick. there are a many funds that outperform their respective vanguard fund, net of all fees.

but you already knew that didnt you?

[rwh11385]

i never claimed "paying someone to play with your money" means better results.
its that fees are the least important factor in making money.
where you money is invested is first, what assets you own.
like since 1998 bonds have killed stocks for returns, yes even vanguard with a .19% expense ratio
want more proof? look at all the hedge funds out there. like mutual funds only a few outperform a bogus index like the S&P500, but their fees are huge. i'd gladly pay david einhorn a 5% fee and share 25% of all profits above a 10% return. no problem.
or to put it another way, would you rather pay 2% and get a 10% return, or .19% and get a 8% return?
vanguard harping on expense ratios is a marketing gimmick. there are a many funds that outperform their respective vanguard fund, net of all fees.

but you already knew that didnt you?

I would enjoy you showing any proof actually. And not just you making assertions and trying to present opinion as fact.

Way to make up assumed numbers instead of actually bringing any data to the table except one specific example which you are trying to extrapolate to a general conclusion. Weak argument as usual.

[gwb72tii]

I would enjoy you showing any proof actually. And not just you making assertions and trying to present opinion as fact.

Way to make up assumed numbers instead of actually bringing any data to the table except one specific example which you are trying to extrapolate to a general conclusion. Weak argument as usual.

nope, you said it yourself in your lame way of trying to insult me
i just sell mutual funds
and while we do use funds, we can use any fund anywhere anytime, free of all commissions. so i am in fact an expert in mutual funds.
which means we get down to returns and risk as decision points, and guess what my misinformed friend
fees do not matter. no load funds do not always outperform load funds or vice versa.
but you knew that already

[rwh11385]

nope, you said it yourself in your lame way of trying to insult me
i just sell mutual funds
and while we do use funds, we can use any fund anywhere anytime, free of all commissions. so i am in fact an expert in mutual funds.
which means we get down to returns and risk as decision points, and guess what my misinformed friend
fees do not matter. no load funds do not always outperform load funds or vice versa.
but you knew that already

So instead of backing up your statement and following up when you offered more proof, you stick to an appeal to authority?

You are an expert on funds but cannot show they are worth it? Even if you assume they do? I've shown data that displays how many active funds lost to index ones after fees - you deny it but can't refute it at all??