Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
BlackRock Vows New Pressure on Climate, Board Diversity
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 ..."
@Lewis You may be an excellent writer of financial news, but apparently you didn't hear the latest news about climate change. The Trump administration has proven once and for all that global warming does not exist.
Can you provide link to that article that proves global warming does not exist? I practice goal based investing and one of my portfolios was going to attempt to send my kids to Mars.
@dryflower There is no controversy about the science except for that manufactured by the industries standing to financially benefit from the denial of that science.
You impugn the motives and integrity of those who disagree with "the consensus", and maybe you are right in doing so. Or maybe not. Until such time as I have the expertise, time, patience, and desire to study the issue as a scientific question (which of course will never happen) it is simply a question of believing one group of people over another, or just saying I don't really know.
@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.
Scientists pushing man-made climate change have a conflict of interest in that they would eventually lose funding if man-made climate change was to become not widely accepted. So in general I would say that they have they are more or just as compromised than skeptics. The "proof" for man-made climate change is based on the assumption that computer models are adequate despite the fact that we do not currently sufficiently understand the complex dynamics of the earth-atmosphere-solar system.
Just curious, of the 97% of world scientists who find validity in the claim of man-made climate change, how many or what percentage of them receive funding for their studies in this regard? We do know that certain man-made practices (burning fossil fuels) are contributing to changes (not good ones) in the earths climate. The current best estimates of how much, how fast, how extensive, how damaging may still be up for debate but the fact that our practices are contributing are not. How long are you willing to watch the dam leak before you decide to attempt to repair it?
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.
@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.
When "everyone" is saying the stock market is going to go down, but it keeps on going up, what do we do? We look at the charts. Some people refuse to look at the charts. That's why I use ANALysis for investing. I tried Analysis. The problem was Analysis is based on facts which one does not know if they are "alternative facts", because one does not have any means to verify them. You read about them and have to trust them. Charts you can see.
When "everyone" is saying the climate change is real, but we don't observe any change, what do we do? We look at the sea levels. Some people refuse to look at the sea levels. That's why some people (not I, really not I, and that's not an alternative fact) use CIALis. They tried other things. The problem is other things don't work. An ******** one can see.
Wait... wrong argument. And this item should not be in "Fund Discussions".
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 - "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
@Mark Here's the thing: Even if Curry's research claims aren't politically motivated, do you think the members of Congress and industry lobbyists and energy investors who seize upon her research as some sort of evidence aren't politically motivated in doing so? Do you think they give proportional time in Congressional testimony to the percentage of climate scientists who do think climate change is a huge threat? Do 97 scientists who say watch out for climate change get to testify in Washington for every three like Curry who aren't sure it's a big deal? No, they actively seek out climate science skeptics to maintain the status quo with regard to fossil fuel regulation. In almost any other field of inquiry, if 97experts said something was a problem and 3 said it wasn't, the 97 would be given more weight. But here, because a massively powerful wealthy industry stands to benefit from denying the scientific evidence, the experts are scorned and overlooked.
@LewisBraham I most definitely believe that denial claims are politically and/or industry motivated. So do many others, on both sides, including Ms. Curry. My point directed at Johann was that Ms. Curry is NOT a climate change denier but rather one who believes that we most assuredly do not have all the correct answers out to the right number of decimal points and she thinks we ought to cross a few more t's and dot a few more i's before we go beating out chests. That is a far, far cry from the assertion that she believes the claims are bunk. The article I linked goes into this.
@Mark The problem is doing nothing is also an action. It is accepting the status quo, which also has an outlook for the future that could also be wrong and there is far more scientific evidence that old outlook is wrong. It is a status quo philosophy on fossil fuel consumption that was established decades before climate science existed. So massive fossil fuel consumption is also a form of "beating our chests." It is not merely letting nature take its course as nature has been altered by the existence of that oil consumption and the ideology behind it.
"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.
@davidrmoran It's also odd that whenever I've seen discussions about climate science at sites posters with new handles I've never seen before suddenly materialize to discount it. It makes me just a leeetle paranoid.
Lewis- surely you're not suggesting that we may have yet another "mole"? Goodness, right after "Dex", "Dan Hardy", "Mary Kay" and "Sandra Wisdom"! How exciting!
Comments
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
Regards,
Ted
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!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
You impugn the motives and integrity of those who disagree with "the consensus", and maybe you are right in doing so. Or maybe not. Until such time as I have the expertise, time, patience, and desire to study the issue as a scientific question (which of course will never happen) it is simply a question of believing one group of people over another, or just saying I don't really know.
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.
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.
When "everyone" is saying the climate change is real, but we don't observe any change, what do we do? We look at the sea levels. Some people refuse to look at the sea levels. That's why some people (not I, really not I, and that's not an alternative fact) use CIALis. They tried other things. The problem is other things don't work. An ******** one can see.
Wait... wrong argument. And this item should not be in "Fund Discussions".
https://scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
From: Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html
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.
tyvm
Johann's is the pinnacle of false equivalence, and worse