"nature has been altered by the existence of that oil consumption and the ideology behind it"
I'm not certain that there is any "ideology" working here, other than the age-old tactic of making lots of money while either taking "more than your fair share of" or actually degrading a common community resource. In previous posts related to this concept I've mentioned grossly oversized trucks wreaking destruction upon the common highway infrastructure as an example of this sort of thing. This tactic has a venerable history, dating back at least to the 19th century displacement of small local agricultural interests by the conversion of the village "commons" to private ownership.
This is simply more of the same, with the interesting twist that in the energy-use area we are talking about wreaking impairment, if not a degree of destruction, on the entire planet. Personally, I consider anyone who does not accept the general premises of the scientific "97%" to be either a well-paid charlatan or a fool.
The problem with the data, to the extent that there is one, is the proper allocation of the degree of responsibility for the climate change to man-made intervention. This of course directly impacts the degree of financial responsibility attributable to any one specific industry. If my job involved protection of the profit structure of one of those industries, I would be very interested in hard data that was reasonably specific about my share of the cause, and therefore my fair share of the amelioration costs. I am not optimistic that this issue is going to be resolved any time soon, or even in sufficient time to prevent a universally catastrophic change in planetary conditions.

@Johann - "Climate skeptics have seized on Curry's statements to cast doubt on the basic science of climate change. So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry."
From: Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html

FYI: Morningstar data shows a persistent performance gap for fund investors, but DALBAR says the problem is much worse.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=798145

Let's be clear regarding scientists' funding for research. Does anyone here honestly believe the oil industry, one of the wealthiest industries on earth, doesn't have the financial resources to back their own research that far exceeds any university endowments or piddly grants scientists routinely apply for to fund their research? If there was solid evidence against anthropogenic climate change, legitimate scientists would have long ago found the financial resources to fund the research to prove it. There would not be this massive consensus in the scientific community from different corners of the globe regarding climate change. The fact is, the opposite is the case. The oil industry did its own research regarding anthropogenic climate change and has long known that it is real for decades and has been doing everything it can to cover up this fact ever since:
https://scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/

@Johann - if you are going to say that a figure has been discredited, please give some citations.
Here is a link to a recent article in Environmental Research Letters (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002) that says "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper." About the Tol et al. (2016) comment that you might be referring to, this paper says "Tol's erroneous conclusions stem from conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent." Please read the linked paper for the details.
I am an active researcher in atmospheric chemistry. I and my colleagues publish conclusions that are supported by the data we collect. In general, scientists are highly ethical people. I can't imagine anyone I know publishing something incorrect in order to "toe the established line."
I got my start in this field studying the chemistry behind the Antarctic ozone hole. That was an example of good science informing sound policy that is (slowly) solving the problem. If only climate change were as clear cut. There is clear evidence that the planet is warming in increasing air temperatures, increasing ocean temperatures, and disappearing ice sheets and glaciers. Predicting the future relies on complex atmospheric models that agree on the trend, but show a wide range of potential outcomes. That uncertainty, unfortunately, is being used by politicians and corporate interests to justify inaction.
Personally, I am very worried about the future of this planet and the legacy we are leaving for our children and grandchildren.

The 97 percent figure has been discredited. It comes from an informal master student study that has serious methodological and statistical flaws. Also, any survey of climate scientists is skewed because many are dependent on getting government funding if they tow the established line. Those who become skeptics have to find some other line of work. Look up Judith Curry who is a climate scientist who recently quit when she became a skeptic of man-made global warming. Unforunately when the government has billions of dollars available for global warming research there is a lot of incentive for keeping the money coming. Scientists are human. Those who are perhaps more honest and more capable find other work. With regards to your other comments, we better be sure if man-made global warming is a real danger or not before returning our economy to 1990 levels of energy use which would result in drastically lowering living standards around the world. Current computer modeling upon which the argument of man-made climate change are made have not been very accurate in predicting the past 10 year or so.

TEDIX same fund as MDISX. Available at Fidelity NTF. I know higher E.R. and has a 12b-1 fee but is available.

@dryflower Yes, I do impugn their motives. If you click on many members of that list, you can find their relationships to the organizations and industries of which I speak. But even in the case of scientists without industry conflicts of interests, let's put it in more human terms:
Suppose you went to 100 heart doctors and 97 of them said if you don't stop eating Big Macs and exercise more, you're going to have a heart attack. The remaining 3, said they aren't so sure Big Macs are the problem. Two of those remaining three you find out have a financial relationship of some sort with McDonald's and will receive some sort of bonus or paid speaking gig if you continue to eat Big Macs. The third just disagrees with the science. Would you take no preventive measures whatsoever based on that diagnosis? Would you continue to eat as many Big Macs as you normally do and do no exercise, or maybe cut back at least a little on the burgers? Because right now 97% of climate scientists say if we don't curtail our use of fossil fuels, the earth will have a heart attack.

I have heard 2 arguments presented to convince me to believe in anthropogenic global warming:
1. All of the scientists have agreed that it is true. Or at least that there is "a concensus".
2. If you don't believe in it you are stupid.
#1 seems to not be true, and #2 really isn't a very valid argument, but really, that's all I get.
There is very much a controversy, even among those who are highly trained in climate science.
Personally, I continue to believe that global warming is the single biggest threat to mankind since the Y2K computer bug!

FYI: Is your investment portfolio built to thrive when interest rates rise?
Now is a good time to find out. After years of low borrowing costs, rates appear to be headed higher as the U.S. economy improves, inflation ticks higher and jobs become easier to find.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2017/03/14/rate-hike-investing/99126150/

Not a bad idea for TRP folks wanting a hands-off approach - I own a few of their funds and think they're one of the better no-load fund companies out there. But I agree with the poster who wonders why this is any different/better than going into one of their balanced or T-D funds.
To TRP's credit, there's no extra advisory fee other than the ER of the funds you're put into via the program's allocation, which is a neat twist. However, I don't like allocations of anything that don't contribute meaningfully to a portfolio -- so while you have exposure to (say) 15 different asset classes, if 7 of them are in the 3-7% range allocation in the account, I think that's a useless allocation and not something I'd do myself. Thankfully, you can 'blacklist' funds to somewhat pre-approve your asset class exposure, which is a nice thing.
I don't see a need for this service, but from what I see, I commend TRP for how it's offering it.

I agree with @Mark that TurboTax takes care of the problem. I too did not like the late arrival of the K-1s. I avoid investments that generate K-1s because of an inheritance from my wife's family that has taken more than five years to settle, partially because my father-in-law died suddenly leaving MLPs and other tax-avoidance strategies for which no one knew the bases. If he were to know what the family paid the green eye shades and lawyers his repose would surely be disturbed and he might see the downside of pursuing an aggressive anti-tax agenda. (Sorry if I wandered into politics…)

FYI: High-profile fixed index annuities salesman Phillip J. Cannella 3rd at one the free dinners he hosts across the region to promote his company. Cannella, who also hosts an hour-long paid radio infomercial every Saturday and Sunday, says his firm writes $100 million in contracts annually, earning $6 to $8 million in commissions.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/Fixed_Index_Annuities_Magical_or_Unsuitable.html

If you use turbotax the program walks you through the K-1 real easy.

@BenWP: No, my accountant takes care of that. The K-1's usually arrive late, which requires an amended return be filed. It's really no big deal.
Regards,
Ted

@Ted: Do you do your own tax returns or do you let someone else deal with those K-1s? FWIIW, I'm DIY.

We'll hope for the best. That said, one line from Blackrock caught my eye as an excuse they're already teeing up:

BlackRock stopped short of pledging to vote more often against companies' management. It said it still prefers private meetings with executives and casts critical proxy votes only as a last straw.
"We can't micromanage," [Blackrock] said.

This strikes me as a cop out.
Micromanagement is not a ballot concern, especially since the SEC already bars shareholder proposals that attempt to micromanage. So if a proposition is on the ballot (and not kicked off by the company), you can rest assured it is not a micromanagement proposal.
SEC "Rule 14a-8(i)(7) provides that a proposal is excludable when the proposal deals with a matter relating to the company’s ordinary business operations. ... [This rule bars proposals based on] “the degree to which the proposal seeks to ‘micro-manage’ the company ..."
https://media2.mofo.com/documents/frequently-asked-questions-about-shareholder-proposals-and-proxy-access.pdf

Thanks @Roy,
Wow...impressive:

Online investment management that puts our experts on your side. So you can spend more time on what matters.
https://www3.troweprice.com/usis/personal-investing/products-and-services/activeplus-portfolios.html?PlacementGUID=11272201011978&CreativeGUID=11272201012011&ATLID=1

Baby steps, but progress nonetheless:reuters.com/article/us-blackrock-climate-exclusive-idUSKBN16K0CR