Global Warming is over.

[gwb72tii]

yup, and many index funds lose to active, both on risk and return
i'll post up on the other thread later

you want a fast example?
Loomis Sayles Investment Grade bond fund vs the Vanguard s&p500 index fund, from 1998

[rwh11385]

yup, and many index funds lose to active, both on risk and return
i'll post up on the other thread later

you want a fast example?
Loomis Sayles Investment Grade bond fund vs the Vanguard s&p500 index fund, from 1998

Wow one example. And trying to justify a relationship in general based on a single data point?

Anyone want to identify the logical fallacy?

[cale]

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.

This would be news to everyone the climate study field.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

This is where the consensus comes from, you can plainly see there is one among the top tiers of climatologists.

You've now seen it, you have no excuse to deny it any further.

and show me any skeptic who's making the big bucks please, because all of

You mean like groups like the Hartland Institute and their investors, oil corporations and the Koch brothers? Yea, they have nothing to loose if tighter regulations were put in place

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.

Excuse me, is literacy not a prerequisite for being able to post on a forum?

Both sides may have corruption sure (speculative, on both ends)

I start a paragraph fully admitting the AGW side may have faults, I'm sorry you couldn't read that because you're too blinded with your assumptions about my position. Allow me to take a quote from rwh's post to address this tactic of yours.

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.

To summarize, you're an idiot who seems to be incapable of fully understanding the opposition you're so surely convinced is wrong. Try reading for a change.

[gwb72tii]

Wow one example. And trying to justify a relationship in general based on a single data point?

Anyone want to identify the logical fallacy?

you asked pal, and now here you are with your pants down again
do a 5 year comparison then

[rwh11385]

you asked pal, and now here you are with your pants down again
do a 5 year comparison then

My pants are down because you made a logical fallacy argument and failed to disprove mine based on a wealth of data?

Just because you claim to have won a pathetic illogical argument doesn't mean that you have done anything but underline the fact that you are clueless about what makes a good argument and how flawed all of yours are.

[Fusion]

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.

That I agree with 100% and you have basically come to agree with my whole point, in that the whole debate is not about the temperature, nor CO2 ppm, but rather "AGW rhetoric", which allowed the green parties to be elected based on their pointing to Mann and Gore and subsequently creating laws and regulations.

They always need a negative data scenario to justify taxing something. The environmental stuff is perfect in this sense because every part of every day of our lives has some effect on the environment, from your getting up from bed and turning the lights on, making breakfast out of foods from farms, to whatever it is you do at work. They can now easily justify taxing a tube of toothpaste, raising meat prices and of course your daily commute.

For example some EU commission douche thought it would be nice to have roadworthiness tests once a year, because his raw data and "shocking" public statement showed that car parts in poor condition amount to 2000+ deaths a year. Seemed really jaw dropping, until some "denier" pointed to that being a couple tenths of a percent of total car deaths, and German TÜV had to step up and say its an illogical step, and that there are other car safety issues that could be improved.

How else could you regulate AGP performance? Tell parents that the cards are radioactive and their children could turn into frogs?

[herbivor]

Has anyone here dseen the PBS documentary yet ?

[Fusion]

Fell asleep halfway through it the other night. Plan to see the rest.

[gwb72tii]

Has anyone here dseen the PBS documentary yet ?

the way SF is playing i should be able to watch it soon

[gwb72tii]

My pants are down because you made a logical fallacy argument and failed to disprove mine based on a wealth of data?

Just because you claim to have won a pathetic illogical argument doesn't mean that you have done anything but underline the fact that you are clueless about what makes a good argument and how flawed all of yours are.

ok, here are some more off the top of my head
FSRIX
MWTIX
PTTPX
TGLMX
FBRVX

and i can find more if you like

and by the tone of your voice you're losing it
get a grip man

[rwh11385]

ok, here are some more off the top of my head
FSRIX
MWTIX
PTTPX
TGLMX
FBRVX

and i can find more if you like

and by the tone of your voice you're losing it
get a grip man

No, sorry, you are still not comprehending what would be required for you to make a valid logical argument. What's ironic is you obsess over the sample size of a poll but think that 7 bias-selected data points out of a magnitude of 10^4 US mutual funds make anything proved except that you have no idea what logic or reason is. You provided a laundry list a different investments in the other thread but want to have their performance represented by 7? No. That might work for your gullible clients that accept what you say and your opinion as certain fact, but not plausible evidence for a logical discussion.

The prospectus has to state that "Past performance does not guarantee future results" but that doesn't mean you aren't trying to fool clients that funds that have been lucky in the past will continue to pick winners. And they don't constantly win, so even if they do strong for a few years, the law of averages catches up with them and takes their performance to the fatter part of the normal curve, or perhaps the fund is shut down entirely to improve the flock and continue to help pull the blinders over the eyes of your clients. Still, even without accounting for the survivorship bias, the majority are losers after fees - as shown. Showing 7 data points does not refute the data... because of:

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.
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.

Your picks are obviously going to be good performance and not random in nature, so you cannot prove that the majority fall subpar to index funds. You could list the 50 funds that performed 10% better than an equivalent fund after fees, but that doesn't zero out the other data points.



Do you not understand the logical fallacy you are attempting to make repeatedly?

My "tone of voice"? I'm "losing it man"?
Ha, nice attempt of ad hominem, projecting your inability to make an argument onto me. Let me know if you ever learn a basic understanding of logic.

[gwb72tii]

ok, here's a "random" pick
choose any intermediate bond fund and compare 5 year performance numbers
THEY ALL BEAT THE S&P (or nearly all as i don't have every fund's record)
choose any
they all have higher expense ratios than your fave vanguard whatever

and this is not to say vanguard doesn't have good choices, they do, we use 1 or 2
they're a quality company

bonds have outperformed stocks, period, over the last 5 years
regardless of fees

performance is driven by asset class, not by low fees

i mean a second grader could figure this out rwh, why not you?

[rwh11385]

ok, here's a "random" pick
choose any intermediate bond fund and compare 5 year performance numbers
THEY ALL BEAT THE S&P (or nearly all as i don't have every fund's record)
choose any
they all have higher expense ratios than your fave vanguard whatever

and this is not to say vanguard doesn't have good choices, they do, we use 1 or 2
they're a quality company

bonds have outperformed stocks, period, over the last 5 years
regardless of fees

performance is driven by asset class, not by low fees

i mean a second grader could figure this out rwh, why not you?

Hmmm, clever choice of a 5 year time frame to cherry pick with. What about 20 year?

How do all of your immediate bond funds compare with BIV, with regards to performance? And why would you pay more if they weren't all better?

Maybe you should attempt to refute Vanguard's claim that:

95% of actively-managed bond funds underperformed their indexes for the 10 years leading up to 2007

And nice ad hominem to finish up George. Truly showing how great of an arguer you are with a vast amount of data and logic to support your case...

[herbivor]

You guys totally derailed this thread. Maybe you should start an investing thread in the off topics lounge and continue this debate there.

[rwh11385]

You guys totally derailed this thread. Maybe you should start an investing thread in the off topics lounge and continue this debate there.

There already is one... but he decided a red herring was necessary.


GWB - maybe you can try to discredit the scientific basis of global warming, that certain molecules radiate and trap heat in the atmosphere. You keep trying to say that there is no empirical evidence but the entire basis of AGW goes back almost 200 years now. The climate change scientists are only trying to more accurately model the change, no one is debating the science of GHG:

Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere.