The Ominous 2 degree change…

The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

I love George Carlin, but that’s not what this post is about. Climate change has been a hot topic for many years now- ominous warnings of a 2 deg C increase in global warming have been on the News forever and it is certainly heartening to see investments in energy and technology in this domain growing over the last few years. But this post is not about energy or technology.

If you remember the recent State of the Union address, there was specific mention on the topic of climate change, amidst all the talk about sequestration and Simpson-Bowles, one lonely but very interesting proposal on the topic of climate change reared its head:

…. we must do more to combat climate change. Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense…..I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago….

So what did John McCain and Joe Liberman work on? Well.. CAP AND TRADE emissions reduction mechanism, ring any bells?

This is the name given to European’s Emissions Trading scheme which was implemented in 2005 for trading Greenhouse gas Emissions allowances.

A 'cap', or limit, is set on the total amount of certain greenhouse gases that can be emitted by the factories, power plants and other installations in the system. The cap is reduced over time so that total emissions fall. After each year a company must surrender enough allowances to cover all its emissions, otherwise heavy fines are imposed. If a company reduces its emissions, it can keep the spare allowances to cover its future needs or else sell them to another company that is short of allowances.

This way, there is a price on Carbon(market-based) that is emitted, providing a cost for companies that fail to reduce their emissions YoY and lowering allowed cap on the Carbon emissions would provide a greater incentive for companies to reduce their emissions and shift to cleaner forms of energy. Sounds great, right? Let’s look at how this has taken shape in Europe.

The Carbon prices that had reached a high of 30 Euros in 2011 went down to lesser than 3 Euros this year, attributed to a glut of allowances handed out earlier and the economic crisis in the region resulting in lowered production and in turn greater allowances to be utilized in the future. Detractors call the cap-and-trade a cumbersome and economically inefficient means of establishing a carbon price, one that is particularly vulnerable to manipulation by polluters and politicians,while the Environmental Defense fund calls the program a success that has achieved its goal of reducing carbon emissions despite inefficiencies in the system and calls out for learning from them.

How is all this relevant to the US? Well, despite the Climate change agenda forming part of the State of the Union speech, we can concur that depending on the Congress to come up with any solution related to this is a goner. However, the state of California has bought into the idea of Cap and Trade and held two auctions for Greenhouse Gas allowances, one in December and the second in January, with futures being sold on the InterContinental Exchange. While the first auction cleared at 9 cents above the reserve price of $10, the second auction(that cleared $3 above the reserve price) has been widely considered a success and a model that could be replicated elsewhere as note here.

One prominent opponent to this has been Dr. James Hansen(Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies),who has been vocal in the past about the EU Cap and Trade system and calls for a simple Carbon Tax.

Will this system continue to work in California? Well, we have to wait for the results to show, however the recent success certainly lends some credibility to the process.

I am a believer in Climate change and I applaud the efforts of governments in trying to combat the issue of Carbon emissions. However, I also believe that policies have to be driven by innovation rather than taxation or the prevalent Cap and Trade mechanism. Do you agree?

Here’s a fifteen minute TED video explaining Climate Change and its future. It forecasts a very dire future for the Earth if left unchecked and is a must-watch if you believed that a 2 deg increase is the end of it.

 

"the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15."

Please tell me Albert Gore, what were thermometers like 100 million years ago?

Of course the climate is changing, but it's idiotic to think we have anything to do with it. I guess we were responsible for the last 7 ice ages too? I feel bad for the people who waste their lives trying to change things outside of our grasp. Get a fucking job.

 
DBCooper:
I, for one, welcome our new climate change overlords.
Well, it's like 30 degrees right now, so according to this "expert" we have to wait 287 more years to get up to 80. I'm wondering which assumptions he used for his DCF (Discounted Climate Flow) to get to those numbers, but I trust his PhDs!

I'm gonna go turn my car on for a while, so we can get some palm trees a bit sooner!

 
BTbanker:
DBCooper:
I, for one, welcome our new climate change overlords.
Well, it's like 30 degrees right now, so according to this "expert" we have to wait 287 more years to get up to 80. I'm wondering which assumptions he used for his DCF (Discounted Climate Flow) to get to those numbers, but I trust his PhDs!

I'm gonna go turn my car on for a while, so we can get some palm trees a bit sooner!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/nRB8Jor8tPs

 
job.resume:
What is the scientific community's opinion on the matter?

If you disagree with them, is it because you know more than them about climatology?

If there's one thing I've learned in banking, it's that you can't even trust a Harvard MBA to have your best interests in mind. Do the research and think for yourself; it's not that difficult.

If you've taken a stats class, you would know to be skeptical about every statistic you ever hear, because like OP even mentioned, correlation doesn't imply causation.

This whole scheme can be compared to saying, "The DOW traded +6 points in the last 30-second trading session. It looks like Roosevelt's New Deal is starting to kick in, and we're headed to 20,000 on the DOW.

Nobody on the planet is smart enough to predict the future with the amount of data these worthless assholes have.

 

I believe in "climate change" generically as "climate change" is a fact. The question is, do we believe in anthropogenic global warming? Unequivocally, the evidence doesn't exist that shows human beings cause global warming or any other type of climate change in any significant way. Literally, the ONLY evidence that suggests the catastrophic climate change scenarios exist is in computer models. Every single "climatologist" computer model has been proven incorrect for the last 20 years--in every case they've failed.

What we do know is that England used to be a bastion for red wine making, that the American Revolution was fought during a little ice age, that weather modeling and climatology are both a science and art and are incredibly imprecise, that a large star in the middle of our solar system creates the solar system's heat and impacts climate change, and that NASA just discovered a radiation belt around Earth it didn't even know existed. We also know that the term "global warming" has proven to be a worldwide joke and that left wing socialists had to re-name the term "climate change" so that any shift at all in the temperature in a given year could be made attributable to human beings.

 
UFOinsider:
Dude, when people warned of a housing bubble in 2005, no one listened.

What makes you think this is any different?

Let them learn the hard way.

What makes this different is the fact that the climate really is changing. Nobody is disputing that.

What I don't believe is that a couple factories and cars that popped up 200 years ago are going to turn a 4,540,000,000 year-old planet into a rock in the next 100. Complete bullshit to just take a few data points from the very end of the timeline, and call it a "trend".

 
BTbanker:
UFOinsider:
Dude, when people warned of a housing bubble in 2005, no one listened.

What makes you think this is any different?

Let them learn the hard way.

What makes this different is the fact that the climate really is changing. Nobody is disputing that.

What I don't believe is that a couple factories and cars that popped up 200 years ago are going to turn a 4,540,000,000 year-old planet into a rock in the next 100. Complete bullshit to just take a few data points from the very end of the timeline, and call it a "trend".

The interesting thing is that there are many people researching this subject. But for some reason you have decided that they are all wrong, after doing pretty much no research whatsoever.

You think climatologists just look at a graph of the temperature, get a ruler, and extend the line? Come on dude...

 
job.resume:
BTbanker:
UFOinsider:
Dude, when people warned of a housing bubble in 2005, no one listened.

What makes you think this is any different?

Let them learn the hard way.

What makes this different is the fact that the climate really is changing. Nobody is disputing that.

What I don't believe is that a couple factories and cars that popped up 200 years ago are going to turn a 4,540,000,000 year-old planet into a rock in the next 100. Complete bullshit to just take a few data points from the very end of the timeline, and call it a "trend".

The interesting thing is that there are many people researching this subject. But for some reason you have decided that they are all wrong, after doing pretty much no research whatsoever.

I question authority no matter what. Just because someone has a few letters behind their name, doesn't mean you should automatically trust them. Hell, George Bush graduated with a 2.0, and Obama still thinks government spending helps the economy. Wake up; nobody on the planet knows what that fuck they're talking about.
 
Best Response
job.resume:
BTbanker:
UFOinsider:
Dude, when people warned of a housing bubble in 2005, no one listened.

What makes you think this is any different?

Let them learn the hard way.

What makes this different is the fact that the climate really is changing. Nobody is disputing that.

What I don't believe is that a couple factories and cars that popped up 200 years ago are going to turn a 4,540,000,000 year-old planet into a rock in the next 100. Complete bullshit to just take a few data points from the very end of the timeline, and call it a "trend".

The interesting thing is that there are many people researching this subject. But for some reason you have decided that they are all wrong, after doing pretty much no research whatsoever.

You think climatologists just look at a graph of the temperature, get a ruler, and extend the line? Come on dude...

You realize that 30 years ago "climatologists" were claiming that the Earth was about to enter a catastrophic ice age. It's not as if we have "better science" today than 30 years ago that kicked off the global warming joke. The global warming alarmism began by a single man in the late 1980s.

 
job.resume:
You think climatologists just look at a graph of the temperature, get a ruler, and extend the line? Come on dude...

Sadly, this is pretty much how it works. They just use algorithms to do it. Past weather performance is no indication of future returns.

 
trazer985:
lol, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

check out 3rd report, their predictions, and then check what actually happened.

You say experts, I say one drama away from unemployment.

Global warming alarmists are like Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses. All 3 groups suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance and all 3 groups would label others as heretics for not sharing their belief systems, despite the fact that the belief systems can be largely discredited.

 
Finance and Fajitas:
The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

Does this same argument hold for nuclear bombs? Is it conceited to think that we could destroy the world with nukes just because "the planet has been here four and a half billion years"?

Everyone in this thread with a BS in Finance who think they know enough to question the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists are delusional. I think they should implement a carbon tax or cap and trade system and use the proceeds to lower corporate taxes or individual tax rates or something. That way, Republicans might be more likely to vote for it and we allow for long term sustainability of the planet.

 
Newspeak:
Finance and Fajitas:
The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

Does this same argument hold for nuclear bombs? Is it conceited to think that we could destroy the world with nukes just because "the planet has been here four and a half billion years"?

Everyone in this thread with a BS in Finance who think they know enough to question the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists are delusional. I think they should implement a carbon tax or cap and trade system and use the proceeds to lower corporate taxes or individual tax rates or something. That way, Republicans might be more likely to vote for it and we allow for long term sustainability of the planet.

Far more question anthropogenic global warming than those with a "BS in Finance". Those of us "skeptics" aren't skeptical of climate change--we're skeptical that it is 1) abnormal and 2) man caused. You get that there are periods of mini ice ages and mini warming periods all throughout history, on very micro (as in hundreds of years) scales? We exited a mini ice age in 1812, for example. The winter of 1775 was ridiculously cold and almost killed the American Revolution.

The IPCC is the main organization pushing global warming alarmism--it takes small pieces from hundreds or thousands of scientists, synthesizes it into a single paper and then claims that thousands of scientists contributed and back the conclusions of the IPCC. The IPCC has at least one scandal a year regarding its statistics and how it is acting as a political organization supporting an agenda rather than science. You can google "scientists that dissent" from AGW and there are thousands. You can google "solar activity" or "sun spots climate change" and you can find dozens of papers on how solar activity probably is the greatest impact on global temperature.

The position you have put forth is simply a religious faith and not science.

 
DCDepository:
Newspeak:
Finance and Fajitas:
The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

Does this same argument hold for nuclear bombs? Is it conceited to think that we could destroy the world with nukes just because "the planet has been here four and a half billion years"?

Everyone in this thread with a BS in Finance who think they know enough to question the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists are delusional. I think they should implement a carbon tax or cap and trade system and use the proceeds to lower corporate taxes or individual tax rates or something. That way, Republicans might be more likely to vote for it and we allow for long term sustainability of the planet.

Far more question anthropogenic global warming than those with a "BS in Finance". Those of us "skeptics" aren't skeptical of climate change--we're skeptical that it is 1) abnormal and 2) man caused. You get that there are periods of mini ice ages and mini warming periods all throughout history, on very micro (as in hundreds of years) scales? We exited a mini ice age in 1812, for example. The winter of 1775 was ridiculously cold and almost killed the American Revolution.

The IPCC is the main organization pushing global warming alarmism--it takes small pieces from hundreds or thousands of scientists, synthesizes it into a single paper and then claims that thousands of scientists contributed and back the conclusions of the IPCC. The IPCC has at least one scandal a year regarding its statistics and how it is acting as a political organization supporting an agenda rather than science. You can google "scientists that dissent" from AGW and there are thousands. You can google "solar activity" or "sun spots climate change" and you can find dozens of papers on how solar activity probably is the greatest impact on global temperature.

The position you have put forth is simply a religious faith and not science.

Ultimately, I and you do not have the credentials to evaluate whether the real cause is "solar activity" or "sun spots" rather than anthropomorphic climate change. You might be convinced by these alternate theories from the (necessarily) dumbed down explanations you read on conspiracy websites with HTML formatting from the 1990's but do you really think these PhD dudes haven't evaluated them already? I've seen a few of the major petitions that dissented from climate change in the past and when I looked at the signatories, a lot of them say "BS in Biology" or "PhD in Animal Science" or whatever. What matters is that the vast majority of climate scientists say that climate change is man-made, abnormal and will be destructive.

Not to go Pascal's Wager on you, but just think of the consequences if you're wrong. It's just not worth doing nothing over in order to save 0.5% of GDP growth in the short term. If we have NYC underwater and more frequent natural disasters, the hit to economic growth will be far worse than that, not to mention quality of life on this planet. Not only that, a carbon tax/cap and trade system would help us get off foreign oil as well, which is a worthwhile goal regardless of whether or not you believe in climate change. Also, if we instituted a carbon tax and cut corporate taxes by an equal amount, we could mitigate or eliminate the negative economic consequences of the tax while gaining the benefit.

 

I have total faith in mathematical models of climate change. After all, wall street hired the best quants they could find to generate financial models, and that worked out splendidly...

Question: how many of you have read a single climatology paper? Why are you so sure that man-made emissions are causing global warming? Because the major media outlets and university professors say so? Well, they surely don't have an ideological bent, I'm sure we can take them at their word...

I've heard it is impossible to get a grant or a tenure track position if you question the global warming paradigm. And let me tell you, as someone who spent years in science, when an investigator has a particular bent he/she always ends up finding data to support that model.

All that being said, I actually am in favor of stronger environmental regs, as pumping shit into the air seems like a bad idea and the burden of proof is on those that introduce new things to the environment. I'm just astonished with the level of certitude people discuss this topic.

 
Newspeak:

Not to go Pascal's Wager on you, but just think of the consequences if you're wrong. It's just not worth doing nothing over in order to save 0.5% of GDP growth in the short term. If we have NYC underwater and more frequent natural disasters, the hit to economic growth will be far worse than that, not to mention quality of life on this planet. Not only that, a carbon tax/cap and trade system would help us get off foreign oil as well, which is a worthwhile goal regardless of whether or not you believe in climate change. Also, if we instituted a carbon tax and cut corporate taxes by an equal amount, we could mitigate or eliminate the negative economic consequences of the tax while gaining the benefit.

http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cartoon-from-trenberth…

 

There are 2 things that all non-believers should consider.

1) if there is any remotest possibility that climate change might be influed or exacerbated by man then it's not worth the risk of it turning out to be true

2) there is much more productive uses of capital than feeding the fossil fuel beast. If we can make cheap clean renewable energy from wind and solar farms as well as powering our cars with hydrogen so they only emit water. Think how the money spent on drilling oil, turning it into gas (ignoring the environmental and ecological damage too) could be better spent on leisure as well as considering the regressive costs that fossil fuels present and allow greater inclusion of the lower socio-economic classes into society

 
t-jfk:

1) if there is any remotest possibility that climate change might be influed or exacerbated by man then it's not worth the risk of it turning out to be true

I don't understand the mind of a leftist. I've heard that argument many times, and here's where it's flawed.

That's like saying, "You might as well believe in God, because if you don't, you risk burning in hell for eternity."

Except all you lefties question life after death, but you put all your faith into random people who claim to know what they're talking about.

 
BTbanker:
t-jfk:

1) if there is any remotest possibility that climate change might be influed or exacerbated by man then it's not worth the risk of it turning out to be true

I don't understand the mind of a leftist. I've heard that argument many times, and here's where it's flawed.

That's like saying, "You might as well believe in God, because if you don't, you risk burning in hell for eternity."

Except all you lefties question life after death, but you put all your faith into random people who claim to know what they're talking about.

Why are you using your ignorance on the topic as an argument as to why you are correct? I'm not saying scientists are necessarily correct, but they know more about this than you do. You are alleging a transcontinental worldwide conspiracy in favor of global warming? Are you being serious?

Back to my main point. Since the beginning of the era of the scientific method, science has been wrong ON CONSENSUS very few times. Hawking's and Einstein's ideas were radical advancements in science and were thus not consensus positions of the scientific community. Can you please name a theory in the past 200 years that was widely accepted by the scientific community and turned out to be false? Global warming is considered to be, by consensus, a true fact.

Chances are, global warming by man caused phenomena is true; probabilistically, I would stake my money on the people who know the most, not on the people who know the least. It's funny how being qualified in an area has become detrimental for expertise when we don't want to believe the consequences.

These are not 'random people'. These are experts on the topic who know what they are talking about. Should we blindly believe them? No...but then again why do you believe the Earth is round? Have you made the calculations yourself? There exists a Flat Earth Society of conspiracy nuts who 'dont believe it'...don't be one of those guys. Exercise some common sense and don't deny every finding as a reflexive whiplash because it happens to be 'leftist'.

To the starving man, beans are caviar
 
BTbanker:
t-jfk:

1) if there is any remotest possibility that climate change might be influed or exacerbated by man then it's not worth the risk of it turning out to be true

I don't understand the mind of a leftist. I've heard that argument many times, and here's where it's flawed.

That's like saying, "You might as well believe in God, because if you don't, you risk burning in hell for eternity."

Except all you lefties question life after death, but you put all your faith into random people who claim to know what they're talking about.

I'm not a Lefist, I vote for the Conservative Party in the UK. And surely having a concern about the CONSERVATION of our environment and planet makes one CONSERVATIVE?

And yes, I do follow the Pascal's wager concept to religion because as much as the scientific community can prove they haven't disproved the existence of God. So, faced with the choice of two paths of ignorance, one documented (whether an individual believes it or not is a matter for themselves to decide) and one not, I follow the path with the least to lose.

 

Okay, here's what I don't get about this whole debate. If climate scientists and progressives/environmentalists believe that climate change is a serious threat to humanity, why the hell are they not working on a solution to reverse the man made causes for said climate change?

I'm not talking about carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, I'm talking about technology that pulls harmful items out of the atmosphere (be it carbon dioxide or whatever is the "cause" of our recent climate change) and/or breaks it down into non-harmful components. Surely the billions of dollars they've spent making fancy models or trying to convince people that their research proves imminent doom for humanity could have been spent on practical research to find a solution.

And yet here we are, still debating the issue. Hell if they had started with finding a solution back in the 90s when "acid rain" and "destruction of the rain forest" were suppose to leave the world barren by 2010, they could have already created technology where this type of debate would be moot.

 
crackjack:
Okay, here's what I don't get about this whole debate. If climate scientists and progressives/environmentalists believe that climate change is a serious threat to humanity, why the hell are they not working on a solution to reverse the man made causes for said climate change?

I'm not talking about carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, I'm talking about technology that pulls harmful items out of the atmosphere (be it carbon dioxide or whatever is the "cause" of our recent climate change) and/or breaks it down into non-harmful components. Surely the billions of dollars they've spent making fancy models or trying to convince people that their research proves imminent doom for humanity could have been spent on practical research to find a solution.

And yet here we are, still debating the issue. Hell if they had started with finding a solution back in the 90s when "acid rain" and "destruction of the rain forest" were suppose to leave the world barren by 2010, they could have already created technology where this type of debate would be moot.

There are technologies that are being developed to work on this and I think they should definitely pour resources into trying to reverse the effects of climate change. The problem is that we don't necessarily know the side effects of geoengineering. If I remember correctly, there have been some methods tested in the past that have had unintended consequences. Should definitely research it as well though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/so-you-want-to-manipu…

 

maybe not a prius, but can we all agree to drive a tesla? or maybe we can just buy a used car and avoid the carbon footprint of buying a new car entirely. but i digress...

i studied geophysics as an undergrad. earth's climate is a an incredibly complex beast with many layers of positive and negative feedback loops. there are novel results due to the change of individual variables which also change depending on concentration (remember what a pH buffer looked like on a pH vs concentration graph in your high school chemistry class?). the earth is also not a controlled system and changes in the suns output (and yes this has had some fluctuations in the last 200 years) also have effect on our climate. i will also admit that there is some group think going on as well as some academic "momentum" if you will. both of these dilute some of the science underway.

after 4 years of study (which i admit is not very much) i can state with statistically significant certainty that the carbon that we have put into the atmosphere has had an effect on our climate. if i am wrong it will be because the system that we have defined as the earth's climate contains a variable that i do not currently know about or have failed to consider. this is true of every scientific theory though. i will however say that i place about as much faith in mathematical models as i do in lifestyle condoms (thats a story for another time). there are always assumptions and those assumptions tend to undermine everything.

scare tactics, in my opinion, are always bad form. instead, the best argument can be summed up by this: the true cost of fossil fuels is higher than that of renewables. i understand that there will always be good reasons to use fossil fuels (plastics for one), but for the vast majority of our needs renewable energy is a much more attractive source.

 

As an avid consumer of sci-fi, I've sometimes contemplated its representation of other sentient species (when they aren't trying to exterminate us). One theme that is often demonstrated is that of a mature species. I've always understood what maturity meant to an individual, but how do you measure such a thing on the scale of a species? Finally, I began to understand the various dimension of progress we now largely take for granted in the Western world that are indeed marks of maturity for the human race- reducing racism/ethnic biases, doing away with autocracy/totalitarianism, respecting the rights of the individual (I'm not trying to be Euro- or America-centric; these traditions are strongest in their sphere. Other societies have certainly made marked progress). I've come to believe that how humans address the issue of climate change could be a rite of passage (or at least a part of one). To pretend that we do not have an impact on the planet is an infantile notion. In that vein, perhaps our reach has exceeded our grasp and we have not succumbed to nuclear fire thus far by mere luck. I wonder if Mr. Carlin considered our capabilities to unleash destructive power of when he doubted our ability to affect our world as we now have the ability to destroy life on its surface several times over. It is intelligence and our use of it, not our time on Earth as a species, that will prove to be either our greatest asset or the curse that dooms us.

I've always believed that the price of fossil fuels are currently below their total true costs. Because there are inescapable negative externalities, those costs must be incorporated into the price. However, the conceptual difficulty has always laid with the method of executing a coherent strategy to address the issue and persuade global compliance. I don't have much confidence in the current governments (the U.S. government and E.U.) and their ilk to appropriately address the issue free of corrupting influences and ill-considered policies. However, it is an issue that must be addressed- and in a timely manner (on a geologic timescale). Ultimately, this could be a Great Filter, as described by Nick Bostrom, that will affect whether or not we demonstrate we have the mettle to exercise judgment and our ability to weigh short and long-term consequences.

However, as an aside, I will say I do not agree with the abusive tactics nor draconian recommendations of the 'pro'-climate change camp. It is their methodologies that have partly contributed to the stagnation in the progress toward any resolution.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid
 

"Conservation" and "conservatism" have nothing to do with each other. Conservatism, fundamentally, is the strong belief in the rule of law, free markets, individual liberty and slow societal evolution. That both words begin with "conserv" is simply a tell on the origins of the words.

Where Pascal's Wager breaks down is that cap and trade and other idiotic schemes will have absolutely no material impact without the Third World on board. The only thing it would do is make the western nations implementing these dumb policies even less competitive economically.

When the chief spokesman (Al Gore) for anthropogenic global warming owns a gigantic mansion and flies around in a private jet and drives around in limos and SUVs, to me casts doubt on the veracity of his concerns, particularly when well connected people like Al Gore and Solyndra have become mega millionaires propagating their AGW beliefs.

I can't stress this enough--if not for the United Nations IPCC, AGW would have virtually no substantial scientific spokesman. The IPCC, AGW's chief propagandist, is a scandal plagued and corrupt organization, financed by a corrupt organization (the UN). That its much maligned reports with predictions that never pan out is given any credence by otherwise intelligent people is somewhat breathtaking to me.

 
DCDepository:
"Conservation" and "conservatism" have nothing to do with each other. Conservatism, fundamentally, is the strong belief in the rule of law, free markets, individual liberty and slow societal evolution. That both words begin with "conserv" is simply a tell on the origins of the words.

I guess Latin didnt prominately feature on your school'sl curriculum...

And actually, what you described is liberalism. Besides the "slow societal evolution" part. You need to read The Road to Serfdom before you start defining conservatism as a list of buzz word terms the political right champions but doesn't deliver.

 

Beatae modi est distinctio laboriosam velit autem eos eveniet. Ut ut ut quibusdam dolores. Consequuntur fugiat quasi dolor et.

Exercitationem assumenda nobis amet aliquid doloribus a quibusdam reprehenderit. Qui tempore labore est iste accusamus rerum. Qui enim vitae omnis qui explicabo. Qui dolorem aliquam non consequatur est. Expedita est ad molestiae quisquam quo.

Et tenetur harum nam nemo inventore fugiat expedita. Excepturi hic necessitatibus ullam officia aut architecto distinctio temporibus. Repudiandae voluptatum est sed atque rerum. Deleniti aliquid deserunt qui esse perspiciatis quas amet. Suscipit quam dolor voluptatem adipisci eaque ducimus. Odio eum sunt a qui vitae sit rerum.

Fugit deserunt accusantium ullam rerum a. Aut modi minima numquam. Rerum occaecati consequatur debitis facilis.

 

Totam sit consequuntur quibusdam. Cupiditate reprehenderit aspernatur provident nesciunt qui impedit. Quidem maxime atque quae et. Est et delectus ad est ipsa consequatur eveniet. Accusantium recusandae fuga aut laborum sunt repellendus perferendis. Nulla et non explicabo autem dolor.

Libero atque rerum aliquam qui. Esse sit officiis non dolor aut explicabo. Tempore odio qui excepturi hic.

Dolor minima nam qui reiciendis. Culpa corrupti eos voluptatem ad repellendus consequatur animi. Nihil est explicabo nobis totam.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (85) $262
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (65) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (198) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (143) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
98.9
7
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
8
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
9
pudding's picture
pudding
98.8
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”