Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Prominent climate activist Bill McKibben is unhappy that fund managers seem to be putting profits ahead of action to curb climate change.
Let’s give up the climate change charade: Exxon won’t change its stripes
Every year at the shareholders’ annual meeting, there is an attempt to push the company on reducing emissions. It’s time to stop trying and divest instead.
In 1990, a small group of investors offered a resolution at Exxon’s annual shareholder’s meeting asking that it “develop a company-wide plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The company opposed the motion, which won 6% of the vote, on the grounds that “the facts today and the projection of future effects are very unclear.”
Here’s what happened since 1990: we’ve had all 25 of the hottest years ever measured on our planet. We’ve lost half of Arctic sea ice. The ocean has become markedly more acidic.
In 1997, Father Michael Crosby, a Catholic shareholder activist from Milwaukee, offered a less taxing resolution: perhaps Exxon could merely report on the impact that climate change would have on the company’s business? Exxon refused, arguing that there was “great uncertainty” about climate change. The resolution eventually took 4.5% of the vote.
…
And others – the comptroller of the state of New York, for instance – are going through this charade because they’ve been pressured to divest their shares: to join everyone from the University of Hawaii to the city of Copenhagen to the Rockefeller family in a huge campaign that’s helped change the dynamic around energy investing. Instead of saying yes and joining in, these officials are trying to greenwash their way out of real action.
…
Even if somehow one of the handfuls of climate-related resolutions were to win a majority of the shareholders’ votes, the resolutions are non-binding; those with the most support merely request annual reports. What more information do shareholders need? Exxon has spent millions on climate policy obstruction, and – scientist’s pleas to the contrary – plans to burn all of its reserves and keep hunting for more.
If this meeting ends with the same dismal failure as the past 25, it’s time to admit the obvious: the Exxons of the world are not going to change their stripes, not voluntarily. It will be time for state treasurers and religious groups to join those students and frontline communities and climate scientists who are saying “No more.” It will be time – past time – to get serious, divest and break free of fossil fuels once and for all.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/20/exxon-shareholders-climate-change-reform-divest
In my opinion this ridiculous demand is nothing short of an unhinged exercise in personal ego.
As Bill McKibben must be aware, politically motivated divestment is an act of financial self destruction. If the deep green manager of a major fund were to divest from a profitable business, the act of divestment, driving down the share price of the divested asset, would make the divested asset even more attractive for other investors. Everyone else would jump in, to cash in on the financial opportunity created by green stupidity.
By the time the dust settled, the share price of the “divested” asset would be back to normal, and what was left of the major fund would fire the idiot who divested their profits. They would find a new manager, someone who was a little more committed to doing their job.
So Bill suggests that governments, schools and religious groups, organisations managed by people whose jobs might not be so closely aligned to the profitability of their investments, should abrogate their responsibility to the people whose money they manage, throw away potential income, to make what would almost certainly be a meaningless political gesture.
Bill doesn’t seem to pause to consider the harm this would do – the hospitals and schools which would receive less funding, the poor people who would receive less benefits, the increased taxation, the church charities which would be starved of cash. Bill is no fool – surely he knows that the companies he wants to target would not be significantly affected – there are more than enough investors who don’t care about green issues, to snap up the bargain priced assets created by divestment. But inspiring a gigantic exercise in public wealth immolation would sure look great on his next blog post.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Uh-oh, now we’re in trouble. The climate activists are really going to “get serious”. They’re going to pull the big guns out now. No more Mr. Nice Guy. They’ve had it. They’re going to hit us where it hurts most – by huge, emotion-laden, pointless actions. That’ll teach us.
In other words, we’re winning, and they know it.
+1 😎
You’d think they would be putting their own money into green power if they cared that much about it.
Instead of taking this positive affirmative approach, they take a negative punishing approach.
They are against CO2, they are against fossil fuel companies, they are against everything. They are just negative people.
“Who owns Exxon, who uses Exxon products?” Everyone.
Everyone’s pension money is in fossil fuel companies. Everyone’s insurance premiums have been invested in Exxon waiting for the day they will be needed on a claim. Everyone uses transportation and plastics and electricity. We are all Exxon’ers.
How many people currently hold shares in green power. Not many. Because they are went bankrupt and then were sold at fire sale prices and are now owned by a Goldman Sach’s client as a tax deferral plan.
If green power was so good, people would be lining up to invest in them and there would be no need to be so against something.
Bill it’s time for you and 350.org to get serious and stop using electricity entirely. Put your words into action. At least demand your members pay premium prices for non-subsidized renewables-generated electricity. Show the world just how serious you know this situation to be. Stop sniveling and lead already. It’s past time.
If Bill stops using electricity he won’t be able to use a computer and won’t be able to put things like the above onto the internet.
Now there is a thought ….. .
ExxonMobil CEO mocks renewable energy in shareholder speech
The CEO of one of the world’s largest oil companies downplayed the effects of climate change at his company’s annual meeting Wednesday, telling shareholders his firm hadn’t invested in renewable energy because “We choose not to lose money on purpose.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/exxonmobil-ceo-downplays-climate-change-mock-renewable-energy-118330
McKibben and all the crazy’s like him would throw civilization back into the 17 or 18 hundreds and cause the greatest genocide the world has every seem. The only ones who would be happy with that would be the depopulation crowd, and it would likely consume them as well. These people have to be completely unhinged and dangerous.
Green energy steals money from poor people! That has to be the message that is repeated thousands of times over. Firstly, through government expenditure on climate initiatives causing higher taxes and diverting money from greater needs. Secondly, by creating higher energy costs which are disproportionately borne by the poor. That is the truth and should be our message. Green energy steals from the poor!
Perhaps Billy-boy should try the weeping and sobbing gambit again. It worked so well last time.
There used to be money or kudos in being green, now there isn’t. Sorry Bill, times change. Pull yourself together man and get into another vital activist area. Take a lead from Prez Obama, and get heavily into who has the right to get into the women’s lavatory, while Putin rolls up the Baltic states.
In passing, why is it that wimmen aren’t campaigning to get into the bloke’s lavvies?
Pointman
Those who see this as an economic struggle are missing the point. This is a political struggle. The issue is not who will be economically hurt or benefited but a test of political strength. This McKibben is an enemy of Exxon, fossil fuels, and the industrial history of the modern world.
However, this individual is not just an enemy of industry he is an enemy of people in general wishing their destruction and starvation. At best, he is serving only a crazed mandate to save the earth. At worst, he is the fully comprehending agent of a cabal determined to impoverish the planet in the name of tyranny. Poor people have little time for politics or rebellion.
His ultimate appeal is political. He wants the agents of the state to destroy the fossil fuel industry no matter what the cost. To this end he, like many others in the environmentalist movement, strike a high minded pose. They are, however, evil incarnate.
Until, the public accepts that the environmentalists are a mortal danger and moves against them tooth and nail these murderous assaults on the prosperity of the world shall continue.
“…It will be time – past time – to get serious, divest and break free of fossil fuels once and for all.”
So selling my oil-company stock will mean I no longer need fossil fuels? Will my car change overnight into an electric car with unlimited battery capacity? Bit of a logical disconnect there wouldn’t one say? Or just green magic?
As for Exxon; if enough guilt stricken gullibles sell their shares at the same time and drive the price way down Exxon will do what any other company would do if it could – use their capital to acquire their own stock and so become much less susceptible to the wackos at the AGM.
“Bit of a logical disconnect there…”
Yes. Does anyone know where the “logic-processing unit” is located in the brain? I’m convinced that some people either don’t have one, or if they do, it has been “re-wired” to simultaneously hold P and NOT P without any seeming awareness of the contradiction.
I think in some people the LU has only one register with original contents firmwared in and no input/output circuits
Speaking of doomed divestment policies …
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2016/05/20/i-dont-like-people-who-frighten-children/
Pointman
Not only no impact to the company, but no effect on CAGW, even if you believe it hook, line & sinker
The Greens should divest and put their money in a company they believe in such as Sun Edison,
I take Bill McKibben at his word that he believes AGW is a huge threat. If that’s correct, and Exxon Mobil management is so incompetent as to not take account of global warming’s likely impact on the regulatory environment in which Exxon Mobil finds itself, then I would think (note: I’m not a lawyer) that McKibben et.al. can rightly sue Exxon Mobil management for their incompetence.
I have advocated CO2 realists, who believe that AGW is not a threat, sue Exxon Mobil management for their failure to deal with climate science. In a disclosure process, we can find out what Exxon Mobil management knew about climate science, and when they knew it.
Now, if both Bill McKibben and CO2 realists sure Exxon Mobil, seeking such documents, I expect the CO2 realists would get satisfaction, and thus develop a strong lever to force Exxon Mobil to spend what for them is chump change on educating the public about CO2 science reality.
Meanwhile, I expect the McKibbens of this world would rue the day that they found out what Exxon Mobil REALLY knew.
Ah, but there’s only one way to find out, isn’t there?
To be clear: I have advocated SHAREHOLDERS suing Exxon Mobil management, who I expect have a bona fide legal claim to demanding managerial competence.
Your expectation is incorrect at present, and will continue to be so, in the absence of material adverse events causing precipitous loss of stockholder value.
@Steve Fraser Are you, in effect, stating a legal certainty, or just your opinion. If the former, could you supply a reference, please?
The government (via EPA) is destroying the share value of power companies that use coal as the source of energy. Why would one sue the coal mine or the power company for the drop in value? It is directly caused by the decisions at play in the regulatory field. Those who have been misleading the regulators are directly responsible for the regulations, and therefore the drop in share values.
Sue the people who are making the false assertions about dangers, skies falling and all futures eschatological. Falsely crying ‘Wolf’ is a sure way to be ignored. If crying “Wolf” causes people tangible loss then restitution can be sought. It is in fact a rather blatant form of share price manipulation.
If example of the screaming Greens can be shown where they have personally divested their shares in a company they subsequently attacked, and it hurt the share price, then they have profited from their fore-knowledge of what was about to happen. If they sold the shares short, they are guilty of fraud. If they collaborated across State lines with a divestment and or shorting, they are guilty of a whole raft of things.
@ur momisugly Crispin in Waterloo “Why would one sue the coal mine or the power company for the drop in value?”
For the same reason that I have suggested suing the oil companies for their mismanagement of the climate science information background ‘noise’. Either the management at both the coal companies and oil companies have been keeping up with climate science, or they haven’t. If their management (either coal or oil) have kept up, and came to the conclusion that CO2 catastrophists were full of crap, then they should have taken prudent steps to educate the public, which would have made anti-fossil fuel regulations, predicated on craptastic CO2 catastrophism, more difficult, politically.
And if the management of coal and oil companies came to the opposite conclusion – viz., that the CO2 catastrophists are essentially correct, and they must manage the invevitable decline of their industries prudently and ethically, I see so little evidence of that POV, that I have to again conclude that management was incompetent.
If the fossil fuel co. managements, OTOH, weren’t even paying much attention (a very implausible assumption, IMO), then they are both incompetent and negligent. All the more reason to get on their case.
In a sense, one reason to sue the oil majors NOW, is because of what we can observe happening to coal companies, already.
Now, I don’t really have much of a personal attachment to the fossil fuel companies, and am not, myself, angry at their management for incompetence. (Their willingness to pollute is another matter – certainly, what BP did with Corexit in the gulf should be a criminal offense, e.g. Also, I don’t own any stocks in fossil fuel companies.) However, I am “angry”, if that’s the word, at the fact that guys like Mark Steyn are getting sued by the likes of Michael Mann, and that fact, combined with talk of RICO suits against so-called “climate change deniers” suggests that Anthony Watts and scientists like William Happer and Richard Lindzen may one day get hauled into court, for telling the truth, as best as they could understand it.
If and when these guys are hung out to dry, I have zero confidence that companies like Exxon Mobil will come to their rescue. Instead, I expect their management to just look the other way, and selfishly just look out for their own skins. After all, isn’t that basically what they’ve been doing all along, even though the persecution of truth tellers hasn’t reached the level of a RICO suit?
How about suing the solar companies for disclosure regarding performance assurances that were given to public entities?
+ 1
Assuming they lied, then suing them, also, sounds like a good idea.
I found this to be a good paper on the current state and futility of the DFF movement, as well as McKibben’s role:
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/NAS_insideDivestment_fullReport.pdf
Divestment does nothing to the company and nothing to share prices, It is a matter of ownership and size. It does have the benefit of removing cranky idiots from shareholder meeting.
Warren Buffet just bought $1,000,000,000 of Apple Computer. Nobody noticed until it was announced.
A batch of small fish selling at disjoint times will disappear in the daily flow.
The Hedge Fund industry alone is a $3 Trillion size and turns over investments well under a year, so trade flow some multiple of that. Insurance company investments dwarf that…
Go ahead and sell your shares, it will do exactly nothing.
Certainly nothing to the company. They got money from the public placement years ago. They no longer care who owns them and get no benefit from them. IFF price could somehow be driven down, most big old companies like to do share buybacks. It makes ‘earnings per share outstanding’ better and management bonuses better… Those who don’t sell back get a higher dividend and share price going forward (ignoring external news or business changes). That buyback strategy is a way to turn ordinary income (dividend payout) into long term capital gains by some companies. Less taxes paid, more wealth to the wealthy.
So at best, if price could be moved down, it would result in fatter management bonuses and better wealth transfer to the very rich.
it totally doesn’t matter because the purpose of the tacticl is to promote the meme by getting attention for it and neutralize opposition by keeping them distracted and occupied.
it’s not about science or share prices or any aspect of reality besides power.
and power is all about slavery.
this is about domination and the first step of the strategy is domination of consciousness by seizure of attention.
all their squawking adds up to nothing, in itself, if you keep the focus on YOUR RIGHTS.
as in, YOUR MONEY and YOUR LIFE.
that’s the only thing that matters and as i’ve pointed out in the past- it’s the argument that can’t be beaten.
you can get an old man into the ladies room if you argue rights and your opponents fail to play their own rights.card.
only winning wins, too. everything else that’s not winning is losing.
fighting and winning are so very different – but, as i’ve said repeatedly- the matador wins cuz the bull chases the cape. co2, polar bears, shares – that’s all cape waving.
Okay, give McKibben what he wants.
Shut down Exxon and all those other eeeeeevil BIG OIL companies.
Now explain how all of the food and other goods that people in cities need to survive are going to be delivered. Horse drawn wagons? Give Bill the shovel to clean up the horse manure.
Bill McKibben would be better suited to Astrology.
His predictions might make more sense.
Bill McKibben whines about everything. It’s his job.
Bill McKibben’s ideas are not worth a dirty glass of warm spit.
It is very encouraging to read that Bill McKibben is despairing at the failure of Shareholder Climate Activism
and that he is unhappy that fund managers are putting profits ahead of any action to curb climate change. It suggests that not all sanity has fled and that people are tiring of the foolish CAGW Charade.
I thnk Bill needs to be careful here with obsessing too much about fossil fuels, Exxon, climate change, renewables etc. He just might despair himself into a serious case of depression. I can see him heading down that road if the country and the world continue failing to respond as he wishes to his expectations.
Not that I would care much.
Looks like Vermont is the poster boy for political divestment.
The governor is pressuring the state pension fund to divest in coal and oil.
You can’t make this up:
http://vtdigger.org/2016/02/24/gov-peter-shumlins-speech-to-the-vermont-pension-investment-committee/
Mr. Nye, sadly, defines the rank and file of the LIH (Low Information Hominid). My guess is he thinks he lives today in the year 2016. Geologically, it is the year 11,719 (+/-99years) of the Holocene Epoch. In other words, Mr. Nye, like virtually all climatists, have no idea when they live. LIHs are ignorant of the fact that only 1 of the past (at least) 8 interglacials have lasted longer than about half a precession cycle (which varies between 19 and 23kyrs, with us being at the 23kyr point now, making 11,500 half…..).
The problem might actually be simpler than we presently think. As what I can tell you will require more than 140 bytes, this could readily be considered the first impediment to advancement beyond the LIH level.
Beyond the 140 byte (Twit) barrier lies the fact that there is not just one debate on climate change (anthropogenic GHG emissions), there are actually 3. The 2nd debate (conducted in the scholarly literature, you know, where scientific debate actually occurs) concerns just how long should we expect the Holocene to last? The Holocene is now over half a precession cycle in age, with insolation shockingly close to that of previous glacial inceptions. Ganopolski et al (2016) (and no, I am not going to provide you a reference, I am tired of doing LIH research for you) (besides, this paywalled paper has been previously covered here at WUWT) concluded that had CO2 been at 240 ppm at the beginning of the industrial revolution, instead of ~280 ppm, we would already be deep in the throes of glacial inception (aka the climatic madhouse), which constitutes the 3rd such debate.
Quite a few 140 byte gulps later we find ourselves, Mr. Nye, at the 3rd and most interesting debate. Just why are we still experiencing interglacial warmth? Well, in the event that you are absolutely correct about the efficacy of CO2/CH4/et al as GHGs then Ruddiman’s Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis becomes your only respite. Most proxy archives support the premise that CO2 concentrations in previous end-interglacials had decayed below the 240 ppm threshold. However because of the Holocene development of agriculture, we sewed the seeds necessary to prevent glacial inception starting at least 8k years ago, and accelerated it 5k years ago, with the development of rice agriculture.
This provides the most elegant Gordian Knot ever devised. Or the most decisive intelligence test.
So, Mr. Nye, if you are at all concerned about climate change, disruptive/extreme weather etc. et al, do a little research on the climatic madhouse known as glacial inception. Which, if you are absolutely correct defining the current epoch as the Anthropocene, we may have actually delayed or outright prevented glacial inception via anthropogenic GHG emissions. Meaning, of course, that by extending late Holocene atmospheric concentrations of GHGs we already have offset, or maybe even prevented, the climatic madhouse known as glacial inception. Feel free to disagree, I have laid this trap for you.
This simply cannot be had both ways. The paleoclimate record states emphatically that there are only 2 dominant climate states, the cold interglacial state and the warm interglacial state. Excepting, of course, the millenial glacial aberrations termed Dansgaard-Oeschger events. D-O events make an absolute mockery of the 2C limit on anthropogenic climate perturbations, averaging, as they do, about 8-10C and ranging up to 16C, during the most recent ice ages. Meaning you fail even as regards things which regularly (M=1470 years) happen in-between the 2 dominant climate states!
And what about those pesky warm states anyway! Both the Holocene and the Eemian exhibit abrupt, intense amplifications of temperature. GISP2 ice core data indicates that just during the present interglacial, the Holocene, that 3 such thermal excursions attend the rise of the Minoan, Roman and Medieval civilizations. The Minoan excursion about 1.6C from then normal, 2C from the previous minima, the Roman about 1.2C anomaly to Medieval times being somewhere between 1 to 2C (avg to minima). The modern, “unprecedented” anomaly +0.4C to baseline Little Ice Age” (LIA). Unprecedented. Got it. That was another paleoclimate trap, BTW.
Only the ice age terminations rival glacial inception in terms of extreme weather/climate. It’s OK for an LIH to be freaked-out by the astonishing possibility that according to AR5 worst case scenario we (meaning us) could be responsible for a horrendous +0.8 meter above present sea level excursion here at the end of the Holocene/Anthropocene. For the purposes of the LIH I accept total responsibility for all those LIHs that live in the coastal zones to be devastated by such an egregious rise in sea level. Please, send me the bill. Bill. Mr. Nye. (OK, that was an economic trap William. Just for grins.)
Of course, my HIH (High Information Hominid) actuaries will vet this against the normal, natural end extreme interglacial climate noise that typically attends these times. Taking your best, gold standard of climate, AR5 estimate of +0.8 meters, this will be compared to both the lowest (+6.0 meters) and highest (+52.0 meters) of sea level highstands known to have been recorded at the most recent end extreme interglacials and recommend the appropriate compensation (since I have accepted total responsibility).
Please note that I am an early adopter of the renminbi for international currency transactions. The actuarials, based on +0.8/+6.0 and +0.8/+52.0 cause and effect ratios, I will issue compensation in the amount of 0.00 renminbis. Meaning that you need to up your game, substantially. If my (meaning I accept total hominid responsibility for climate change) signal/liability comes in at just 0.1333 to 0.015 of the normal, natural end extreme interglacial climate noise then the climate liability shoe goes on the other foot. Meaning you owe me, not IOU.
At present you are 13% of the way with your maximum anthropogenic estimate of the lowest natural extimate of sea level excursion at the end of the most recent interglacial. Not to mention you are only 1.5% of the maximum natural noise estimate. So you need to get your feces together here or write me a nuisance check.
I have asked counsel to look into the potential liability that might accrue to those that advocate a path leading to glacial inception. Preliminary findings suggest that costs for relocating population and seaside facilities to accommodate the next 130 meter drop in sea level will be far greater than those for even a rise of +52.0 meters above present. Using the now abandoned North American nomenclature for the last 4 ice ages (i.e. Wisconsin, Illinoian, Kansan and Nebraskan), the actuaries have found costs for re-locating all Canadians and northern tier US states populations to south of the continental ice sheet terminal morraines to be simply astronomical. They are still calculating Russian/European et al estimates, so please stand by.
The suggestion has been made that a registry of those that wish to take our chances with glacial inception here at the presumptive end of the Anthropocene is actually possible. The remainder would necessarily consist of “global warming deniers”, meaning those that prefer extending the Anthropocene beyond the next glacial by whatever means necessary(at present, the only known means would be GHGs, of course).
Paradoxically, of course, this would mean that the costs associated with extending the Holocene/Anthropocene would be born (within the signal to noise paradigm) by said “deniers”. Concomitantly, costs above interglacial SNR for responding to a ~90kyr ice age would be born by climatists. We agree that this seems a fair assessment. But then we are adults, not kids.
Meaning that we are very much OK with absorbing “out of SNR” costs for maintaining Holocene/Anthropocene interglacial warmth. The question, Mr. Nye, are you and your ilk agreeable to the opposite of same?
DISCLAIMER: We, meaning ready to be registered “deniers”, stand ready to fund conversion of HIH comprehension to 140 byte LIH digestible “bites”. We acknowledge the existence of the conversion efficiencies that can actually be achieved between Belief based mental processing structures and Knowledge based mental processing structures. We recognize that this is the normal, natural, typical costs associated with the transition from puberty to adulthood. It is the cost of doing business with our children, however old they actually are. We are also cognizant that when this cost exceeds revenue then “Childhood’s End” will not occur. We accept and promote that this will likely, here at the Holocene/Anthropocene decision point, that this might very well define us as a species. To that end we are not at all averse to “losing” the GHG wars. They are called “population bottlenecks”, the most recent of which was the Mt. Toba eruption 70kyrs ago, immediately thereafter worldwide populations declined to something like 10k individuals, we find art, culture, society, and yes governments, bloomed. Advancing our species or speciation lies in the balance.
P.S. We are not due for our next potential “hardware upgrade” (cranial capacity) until the next eccentricity maxima, ~200kyrs from now. So it may be up to us this time. That will be by genetics or glacially sponsored evolution. As I have no offspring in the offing I do not really have a dominant preference, although I have become almost supportive of Mr Nye’s approach to taking our chances with glacial inception. Imagine if Ganopolski et al (2016) are wrong? Maybe the glacial inception trigger is not 240 ppm CO2. It could be that the confluence of a quiet sun/low N65 summer insolation at a half-precession old interglacial is all that is necessary. We have actually been here once before. We were on the stage as our stone age selves for as long during the last interglacial as our civilizations have been during this one. Obviously few of us, or our immediate offspring, will still be around to perhaps witness this. Interestingly, the possibility exists that we will preserve the current ratio of LIH/HIH until the next regularly scheduled interglacial, or we will not. It is literally just that simple. That is why my hominid compass is trending towards Mr. Nye’s approach. Because being wrong might actually be right, in the long, continuing, hominid run. We could use a better hominid after all. How we get a better hominid may actually be up to us, this time……… Given precisely “when we live” this literally is the ultimate intelligence test. Oddly enough, I am now OK if H. sapiens fails. It took a lot of research to come to such a conclusion.
P.P.S. Which means that please, please, challenge each and every statement I have made. Every single one is a trap. Even at 4 links per comment, I sit on the web of knowledge ready to bury you in reams of scholarly literature (and the links thereto). This is the most exacting intelligence test H. sapiens has ever encountered. And H. sapiens does not have to be the winner. I am no longer in this for the species. I am in this for the genus. As befits the most intelligent intelligence test of our time is that by losing, the genus might very well win. As may have often been the case, this iteration of the genus Homo may get to decide. So, go ahead, knock yourselves out. I would love to be there to interview those of Canadian extraction south, or marginally north, of the next Laurentide continental ice sheet terminal moraine.
It all sort of boils down to how much ice you prefer in your margarita, doesn’t it master Nye?
Mods : I guess his comment above was meant for the Bill Nye thread
…he could have made it a lot shorter as well
(It would be good if WUWT comments sat in collapsed mode, showing only the first 5 lines until you clicked to ‘expand comment’
#1 Guardian pension fund has not de-invested, whilst the actual Guardian newspaper losses are subsidized by it’s offshore tax avoiding huge fund.
#2 The BBC pension fund does seem to lean towards Green Investments , whilst at the same time it gives hours of free unchallenged promotion to firms like Tesla , that it holds shares in Paul Homewood
I hope McKinnen and his fellow idiots go through and divest. It will be a great buying opportunity for me.