[ucodegen]

lindismith:
I wouldn’t take too much force in this publication on Wikipedia. I checked the history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser&action=history
and I see that during the past 3 months, that entry (the exact one you quoted) has been edited and changed several times. The reference I gave you was from Peiser’s own site. I take the site owners reference of his own material over wikipedia. In fact, the entry you quote was added after Nov 25, 2006 and not added by Peiser, but by someone under the alias Kim Dabelstein Peterson. ( less than 1min) NOTE: I may just bump this one up to Peiser to comment on for his own entry into the wiki. I also bookmarked Tim Lambert’s page..

Considering the emotional charge behind the subject, I reiterate, I would take the authors reference over the wiki’s which is publicly edited. In addition, the wiki is not a valid source for scientific papers.. but I do have to admit that it is a good start. College papers that quote wikipedia have received failing grades. (See reference on deletion of items with respect to NAR’s president in the wiki)

Another question would be at which point was the consensus shift and whether it was bandwagon jumping (as you suggested that I do at the end of your first reply). The emphasis on not rocking the boat and agreeing to concensus was noted on either the second or third reference that I gave you.

Again, I also reiterate.. and probably should have stated in the following manner: Science is NOT a voting machine. It does not work on the premise that the ‘results are in’ or ‘the science is in’. Note that even in your first quote above, which is from the wiki “However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous”. If a hypothesis has notable flaws in its projections, it is subject to review. Scientific work does not operate on the bulk number of papers, but on validating or invalidating conjectures, hypothesis(s), experiments, models etc on previous papers and in many cases proposing alternates. Note: The global warming models/hypothesis indicated ocean warming, but recent facts indicate the opposite has happened. This does not prove that the opposite of the hypothesis is true, but it indicates that the hypothesis of global warming through the action of CO2 is either incorrect, or incompletely understood.

Subnotes: I worry about papers whose justification is along the lines of “scientific uncertainties in predicting…that hinder aggressive policy making” (Fernau ME, Makofske WJ, South DW:Review and Impacts of Climate-change Uncertainties) it is too much of a cart before the horse problem.

One sub-paper I did like and will pursue when I have spare time is “Hudson JG: Journal of Applied Meterology 32(4): Apr 1993) – Cloud Condensation Nuclei.. which is also along the lines of a Russian paper on cosmic ray cloud ‘seeding’. Indeed the knowledge on CCN is insufficient. (Cloud formation also changes the light/IR absorption characteristics of water).

[ucodegen]

lindismith,
With respect to the quantity of papers debunking global warming, I would guide you to the 2nd paragraph of the text on my first reference as well as lower under methodology of research. See results:
Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’…
34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the “the observed warming over the last 50 years”…
44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
Papers are available on ISI, which I don’t presently have access to. I provided a indication that more disagree with the view that human activities are the main drivers of “observed warming…”, than agree. Sorry if it is not exactly 50:50… It seems to support the ‘denialists’ more than the ‘pro’ camp.

I also do not like the use of the term “denialists”. This is both an emotionally charged word as well as making the implicit assumption that those under that category are ‘denying’ something that is actually true (follow-on word to denialist often being delusional), and doing so without supporting proof. (Proof by innuendo?)

As for ‘eloquent’, I don’t care. I want analysis that is supported, not eloquently written. I am quite disturbed by Ms Oreskes publication because it violates scientific method and it was not retracted with the same emphasis as it was presented when a significant mistake was found in it.. (reference again to results in the first link). Scientific method requires the experiment/test/analysis to be able to be performed by someone else under the same conditions and obtaining almost the exact same results. When the latter can not be done, the analysis is flawed to the point where it should not be published.

If you are interested in the subject, I would suggest you trace down the last link I had, read through as well as tracing down the links within the paper (some very interesting an critical work is being referenced in that paper).

As for Bush’s bandwagon.. I think Bush’s jumping on this bandwagon is a way to try to be relevant and gain supporters. As with real-estate, I DON’T jump on anyones bandwagon. I make up my mind for myself based upon evidence at hand. If I don’t understand enough to make the decision, I study until I do (this means buying college texts in many cases).

[ucodegen]

First, I must mention that the domain of insults and personal attacks are the behavior of bullys and do not apply to the scientific method. I would have expected a more analytical approach along the lines of powayseller’s style (complete with references, bookmarks, footnotes and supporting information) and along the general style of piggington.com

One thing I have noticed in the whole global warming debate (beyond what this blog page has), is that the pro (Carbon Dioxide {C02} as cause} camp has provided very little in terms of scientific proof or analysis. On the other hand, the anti (Carbon Dioxide {C02} as cause) have presented scientific arguments. Reading both the pro and anti global warming papers, you can detect the difference.

1) That being said, a person on this site asked for proof that there were as many articles debunking C02 as the cause as supporting (lindismith). Here it is.. first some background. The perception that CO2 as a cause of anthropogenic global warming is largely supported by the scientific community came out of a paper written by Naomi Oreskes. The methodology behind this study was found to be seriously flawed and possibly forged. The incorrect results of the study (called as a mistake) by the author were later admitted by the author. The following link references a copy of a letter from a professor at John Moores University, Liverpool UK.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

2) Second point is that the old famous ‘hocky stick’ temperature diagram is incorrect. It was based on cherry picked or forged data. It leaves out the Midieval Warm Period (when C02 levels were significantly lower than they are presently). The following reference shows the corrected graph alongside the ‘hockey stick’ graph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
Scroll down almost half way, or search on the keyword ‘hockey-stick’. The rest of the article is also important.

3) The pro global waming camp claim that the anti global warming camp are just shills for the oil companies. This is another form of name calling, and is not a valid scientific method. This claim also ignores the vested interests of the scientific community. If there is no ‘crisis’, there is no funding for studies. Now scientists are getting worried that they may have ‘oversold’ the global warming scenario which may lead to loss of their credibility.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html
(NOTE: There may be an advertisment pre-page popping up… skip it, the article is titled “Climate scientists feeling the heat”).

One of the better written papers on global warming is from this reference:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.htm
This site is footnoted and has additional references… be prepared for math and having to crack open some of your old college texts..

I also have additional references…

[ucodegen]

Right or wrong about their arguments, that sounds like a nice way of saying Rich was the one under the steamroller.

Actually, I would say it was more of a tie from a ‘debating’ standpoint. The previous Take 5 interview was more of a steamroller job (being steamrollered). Experience always helps, and Rich is new at this.

The point about internal population growth was the only one that Rich did not directly address. Saying that babies do not buy houses, does not address the issue that eventually they do. What is really important is the internal population growth rate, not whether there is a ‘baby’ involved. There will need to be at least two babies to eventually offset the death of the parents in the population.

[ucodegen]

Could someone run the numbers on these.. I don’t have time right now, but it almost looks like it is reverse amoritizing during the first period on the loan. If the peak rate on the ‘competition interest only’ and ‘centex homes interest only’ is roughly the same, the payments on the both of the interest only loans should approach the same monthly amount. They may be mis-stating the type of loan. Since they are showing “For year 1” in fine and dim print, and more detail below in very small print.. they are being intentionally misleading.

[ucodegen]

In my opinion, he did a lot better this time. He was able to point out some major issues. His opponent this time was also better, and seemed to have a better handle on data (though possibly flawed or mis-interpreted data). His opponent did try to talk over him but the interviewer for Take 5 managed to stop him. I would have some recommendations though, mostly to aleviate the deer-in-headlights syndrome that can occur.

1) Before the interview, go through the potential arguments the pro-soft-landing, pro-continued-increase groups may bring up (bulleted list). Write down counter args and support info for those args. It may help to bring this to interview.

2) Bring pad and paper. It will be rude to interrupt and correct the opposing view when they are speaking, but write down a one to three word description of what point they are making. On your turn to reply, you can use these notes to directly address the points they have made. (If they interrupt while you are speaking you can counter that they are being rude and they will have their time to counter as you are doing now). I have noticed that the pro-RE group seems to try to talk over the other person.

One of the points that was brought up and not dealt with is the internal growth in population within San Diego. The truth is that the ‘native’ growth is very slow (the old 2.4 kids formula). With more people in the technical fields delaying when they have children and reducing the number of children they have, the population growth factor has tipped to being slightly negative. The offsetting amount has been immigration (legal and illegal). This is part of what has made the whole illegal immigration thing such a hot topic. It allows corporations to pay a lower wage (raises supply of labor), and increases housing costs (increases demand for housing) = profits for builders/RE agents/ etc in the RE business. Most new immigrants with little education also have many children, increasing the growth factor.

Since I mentioned the 2.4 child rate per family, lets take a look at that. For estimates sake, we can state that all children are born simultaneously at about 30 years of age on the parents (those with little education are earlier, more education are later). Since the parents eventually die, the increase is 40% over 30 years, or a 1.12% per year rate of increase (takes time for the children to also have children of their own.. another 30 years and 2 of the children replace the parents in the population with the 0.4 fractional child being the growth). The rate of increase in the cost of housing should be roughly rate of inflation + percent population growth.

[ucodegen]

Subsidizing rents will not work. It will create an artificial demand for rental property which will drive up rents. This then makes the overpriced houses look cheap. It boils down to supply and demand. You increase demand with a constant supply, prices go up. Both rents and the prices of houses are out of line. A place that I rent looks like it will increase its rents about 7% next year. They are ignoring their own vacancy rates, that people are considering moving out and that several apartment buildings were recently constructed and have opened up. Their justification is that their ‘market surveys’ are showing the increase is justified.

What will happen with the foreclosed homes, is that they will either be resold on the market at significantly reduced prices or will become available for renting. This will increase the supply of housing, allowing for decreases in rents etc.. provided we don’t screw with the demand portion of the equation.

There will be a period of tightening of belts.. but that follows any overindulgence.

Also follow the money.. lessee.. subsidizing rents, allowing high rents to persist, causing the real-estate entities to have higher than normal profits… yeah right, just continuing the same ole problem. Some of the entities who build the overpriced houses also build and operate apartment complexes (BRE/KB for example).

BTW, having higher than normal rents is real. I checked the recapture of construction costs on the place I am in, and they covered the cost of construction (including land) in under 6 years.

PS: If you want to effect a reduction on rents, particularly considering that the builders of houses are also the same ones operating several apartment buildings, don’t subsidize rents. Instead, look at rent control.

[ucodegen]

The Federal Reserve 1% interest rate experiment made homes unaffordable. Before this low interest rate, which stimulated demand and raised prices, young people were buying homes with 20% down.

The problem with the assumption of the 1% rate being the cause, is that it ignores the greed aspect. The real jump in exotic financing occurred after the run-up in prices which occurred after the drop in financing costs. What actually drove the overshoot was the gotta-get-in-too group and ‘banks’ allowing questionable financing. This occured after the price of housing climbed because financing it became cheaper (at 20% down, but lower interest rate).

Before the interest rate drop, how many people could apply and obtain financing of > 100%? The availability of this type of financing is not because of the interest rate drop. It is because of mortgage brokers who still want to find a way to churn the market and get their origination fees. It used to be; you don’t qualify, tough.

I don’t think the Federal Reserve can control the financing overhang that banks are willing to finance to. FDIC is more along these lines. This is a different branch of gov. Just like how margin overhang % on stock accounts is not handled by the Federal Reserve. My understanding is that it is handled by the SEC.

One thing I have been curious in all of this; where is the money comming from for these other lenders? I don’t think some of them are typical ‘banks’ or ‘savings and loans’? Are they regulated as banks? I don’t think they draw on intrabank and federal reserve loans.

Here is an interesting link..
http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch100704psa.htm

reading through at least half way, you might begin to wonder if the same will happen to the real estate industry. Past half way, it gets a little esoteric.

[ucodegen]

There is a critical difference between relying on luck and putting yourself in a position to exploit luck when it occurs.

relying on luck would be the 125% finance, no backup plan, hope things get lucky approach.

being prepared would be to live under your means and to have the resources (and the cajones to use them) when the opportunity arises. RE: cajones, it is too easy to get to a situation where one is risk averse when being careful with expenditures.. one has to look at risk-loss / payoff ratios.

The real trick is to know the difference between relying on luck and being prepared and willing to exploit luck.

Luck can be attributed to the randomness. It can either be good or bad. ie stock, large price drop is good if you want to buy in, bad if you are holding (on margin?)..

[Author]

Posts