More Divestment Lunacy

Guest eye-rolling by David Middleton

Op-Ed: Frustrated by the lack of action on climate change and gun violence? Divest

AUG. 26, 2019

Californians frustrated by Congress’s failure to pass climate and gun control legislation have a potentially potent tool to produce the change they want: divestment.

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, the nation’s second- and third-largest retirement plans⁠, own investment portfolios that brim with shares in fossil fuel companies, ammunition manufacturers and gun retailers. So do almost all 401(k) accounts. Divestment campaigns can change that.

The primary goal of divestment advocacy usually isn’t to force the collapse of target companies by depriving them of capital — that outcome is often out of reach. According to a 1999 study in the Journal of Business, the anti-apartheid divestment campaign that targeted corporations and individuals who did business in South Africa in the 1980s — generally considered the most successful such efforts — didn’t deeply affect South Africa’s financial sector⁠. It achieved its goal by stigmatizing the practices of the South African government. As a 2012 Harvard Political Review article concluded, “It is almost certain that worldwide popular opposition … contributed to the decline of apartheid, and divestment was an important piece of this puzzle.”


LA Times

“That outcome” is always out of reach because divestment is nothing but “a really futile and stupid gesture.” The anti-apartheid divestment campaign didn’t demand divestment form entire industries upon which our economy is dependent. It demanded divestment from specific entities that did business with South Africa. It is not an analogy.

Are these people stupid or just lazy? I clicked on the fossil fuel companies link…

Figure 1. “Fossil Free California” WTF???

Do they have any idea how stupid the phrase “fossil free” is?

Mr. Leslie, a former Vietnam War correspondent and environmental wacko, proceeded to dive deeper into the sea of futility…

Last month, an overwhelming majority — 77% — of the UC faculty on all 10 campuses asked the university’s regents to definitively rid the school’s portfolio of holdings “in the 200 publicly traded fossil fuel companies with the largest carbon reserves.” 

LA Times

What the frack are “carbon reserves”? There are oil & gas reserves, coal reserves and even carbon dioxide reserves used for enhanced oil recovery… But there’s no such thing as carbon reserves. Are the “UC faculty on all 10 campuses” really that stupid?

Figure 2. Yes, they are that stupid.

Did 77% of “UC faculty on all 10 campuses” actually vote for this really futile and stupid gesture? No, not even close.

Figure 3. 2,480/19,600 = 0.126

12.6% of the eligible faculty voted for this really futile and stupid gesture. They more or less ignored the whining, much to the chagrin of Bill McKibben.

“This would be one of the biggest moments in the seven-year history of the fossil fuel divestment movement,” said Bill McKibben, co-founder of, which has led the international campaign.

LA Times

Mr. Leslie continued to dive even deeper.

Only students, faculty and alumni can pressure the UC regents to divest, but millions of other Californians can put similar advocacy to work on their own portfolios. CalSTRS, for example, has repeatedly proclaimed that its funds are gun-free, but according to As You Sow, a shareholder advocacy nonprofit, the teachers’ pension fund still holds hundreds of thousands of shares in ammunition manufacturers and millions of shares in gun retailers such as Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods.

LA Times

Do these bozos really think that Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods will stop selling guns and ammunition because people like Bill McKibben whine a lot?

Mr. Leslie then set a new world record for deep diving into the sea of futility…

One obstacle to divestment campaigns is that individuals don’t know what companies a pension behemoth like CalSTRS or CalPERS is investing in, and 401(k) holders have to choose among mutual funds, which are just as opaque.


“Every company in California should let their employees know what their [401(k)s are] invested in — that to me is really the big issue,” Behar said. “We’re complicit in climate change and gun violence, yet none of us know it, and we don’t realize the power we have to change it.”

In contrast, the UC regents can’t claim ignorance: They manage the university’s portfolio. They should directly address the faculty petition, and they should overcome their timidity and commit the university to wholehearted divestment. The rest of us should end our complicity by dropping investment funds that contain socially destructive companies.

LA Times

“Socially destructive companies”?

Firearms forged the American society…

Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

James Madison, The Federalist Papers : No. 46, January 29, 1788

And fossil fuels keep it running…

Figure 4. It’s a fossil fueled world.

The crazy thing is that we currently burn more biomass for energy than we did before we started burning coal.

Figure 5. “There Has Never Been An Energy Transition

The world consumes more energy now than it ever has before and that demand can only continue to grow.

Jul 5, 2019
Global Energy Demand Can Only Increase

There’s an unimaginable urbanization boom occurring around the world that means more energy use.

We, of course, don’t see much of it here in the West, but global cities swell in population by some 80 million people every year: e.g., the rise of the “megacity” with 10 million residents.

Basically all population growth in the decades ahead will take place in urban areas, all of which will be in the still developing nations (non-OECD), where poverty and insufficient access to energy is far more rampant than our worst nightmares could ever imagine.
And just look to the West to see why urbanization is desirable.


Take electricity, the sine qua non of a modern society.

At less than 2,500 kWh per capita per year, over half the world uses less than 40% what the average Europe consumes and less than 20% of what we Americans use.

Again, the richest, healthiest nations on Earth devouring the most energy and now demanding that the world’s poor can’t do the same.


The global energy demand trend is increasingly… up.

Air Conditioning

Another everyday example of why the world will clearly be using more energy in the decades ahead is air conditioning: “Global Warming, More Air Conditioning, and More Energy.”

Yep, given such dismal electricity access and poverty globally, most of the world doesn’t have that little cooling thing we all take for granted.

So much more electricity-powered cooling is surely coming: the big cities of the still developing nations are far hotter than those in the West.

The U.S., for instance, uses more electricity for air conditioning alone than Mexico (with 135 million people) uses in total for everything.


The global energy demand trend is increasingly… up.


The harsh reality for some is that all energy sources will have a crucial role to play for decades to come: global demand is surging that fast.

Simply put, in a still overwhelmingly poor and energy-deprived world, latent energy consumption is far more immense than what some want you to believe.



Mr. Leslie, meet “the harsh reality”…

Figure 6. Can you find the non-hydro renewables?
Figure 7. Can you spot the unicorn?

If you clowns were serious about reducing the carbon footprint of energy, you would be clamoring for more nuclear power and natural gas…

Figure 8. Solar sucks, wind breaks even and natural gas kicks @$$. (Charles Frank, Brookings Institution).

Instead of just being clowns…

Figure 9. “And we’re just the guys to do it!”

For some reason, this post made me think of a classic Warren Zevon song…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tim Gorman
August 28, 2019 6:12 pm

The second amendment was added to the Constitution as a limitation on the new federal government. But the FF’s were not just concerned about the citizenry being able to defend against a tyrannical government. They were also concerned about individual self-defense.

““The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776”

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 28, 2019 8:43 pm

The preamble phrase of the #2A is unversally mis-characterized on-purpose” by the Left and Democrats in general.

The preamble in italics:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

– First point: From a purely linguistic/semantic standpoint, the preamble phrase “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” makes no impact nor places any limitation on the “right to keep and bear arms” as reserved to the people.
Semantically, this can best be seen when one exchanges the words “Arms” for “Books” and then exchanges “well regulated Militia” with “an educated population.” Then it reads as:

A(n) educated population being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed.

When this simple substitution is made, the preamble does not change or limit the action of the underlying “right”, it merely gives (one) rationale for the “right of the people” that follows.
So the Left when they babble on about a “militia” they are talking out of total ignorance and spewing talking points they’ve been brainlessly indoctrinated with.

Second point: If you find yourself with some idiot who still think the preamble “militia phrase” limits the “right of the people” to only have guns if they are in a militia, ask them what they thing “well regulated” meant to an educated person in 1790 in the US.

The term “well regulated” in 1790 did not mean “government regulated” as it would today.
In 1790, “well regulated” most closely meant “well trained and equipped”.
It did not even remotely mean “government regulations”, as most Leftist morons today thinks it does.

In fact in 1790 US, a Free Man was not governed by “regulations.” Regulations were for military members, where order and discipline and standards of proper equipment were long the recognized necessity for promoting an effective fighting force.
In the context of military conscripts, “military regulations” were needed to ensure the troops were discipline, trained, and equipped. But “well regulated” for Free Men defending their homes, land, and freedoms needed to be “well regulated” (trained and equipped) with (fire)Arms to do so.

A Free Man in the new United States was governed by Laws, not by regulations. Laws passed by elected representatives in Congress or State legislatures. Regulations from the government did not apply to Free men.

3rd point: “the right of the people” cannot be more clear who it is intended for, people. Not a militia. Not a paramilitary organization. It is an individual right, and the SCOTUS precedent has correctly determined. The Left hates that most of all, since deceased Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that precedent setting Supreme Court opinion in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

That ruling put the Left back on their heels. Because to attempt an attack on the Supreme Court over such an interpretation (an individual right where the government cannot go) would open their much cherished Roe v. Wade abortion precedent (created out of thin air) to change as well.

/End #2A rant/

JRF in Pensacola
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 28, 2019 9:27 pm

Correct! “Militia” equals “the people” as the people were/are expected to be armed (for a variety of reasons). As you said, the intent cannot be more clear. And, feel free to rant on.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 29, 2019 3:24 am

Don’t forget, can’t recall where I originally read it, but the first rule of totalitarian guvment is to disarm the people, that way the people cannot fight back! AtB

Of the thankfully rare mass shootings & shootings in general carried out in the UK, most are in gang-land/drug-gang terratory killings/woundings. After the tragedy of Dunblane, the socialist guvemnt siezed the opportunity to ban all handguns, gun crime then practically doubled within a year, largely through useless immigration policies & EU open borders policies, drugs/criminal gangs from the former Eastern Bloc countries smuggled oodles of guns into the UK! In the meantime thousands of legally held handguns were destroyed!

I understand that the UN ranks the USA around 25th in the world for guncrime, behind countries like India & Brazil & Russia, the BBC prefers not to make such things public or it could spoil their anti-American stance it is riddled with!

On top of which, anyone planning or intending on killing somebody, will do so, that’s why murders never happen in the UK coz it’s against the law to kill, apparently!

Geo Rubik
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 29, 2019 6:46 am

Every place in the US constitution where it says “the right of the people” it means just that, the citizen. But somehow it is construed only in the 2nd amendment to not mean the citizen.

Reply to  Geo Rubik
August 29, 2019 8:33 am

Correct. If the First and Second Amendments were given equal treatment, we would be registering journalists – or not registering gun owners.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 29, 2019 8:26 am

To bolster your point, Paul Revere during his famous ‘ride’ to warn the locals the British army was advancing on Concord shouted, “The Regulars are coming!” …not “the British are coming” as the colonials at that time considered themselves British and would have been confused.
Common usage at the time was: Soldier = Regular

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 29, 2019 8:29 am

The word, “regulated” as used in the 18th century, meant, “the property of something being in proper working order.”
A “militia” at the time was an ad hoc group of armed, ordinary citizens formed primarily for defensive purposes.
A “well-regulated militia,” would be an ad hoc group of armed, ordinary citizens whose equipment, i.e., guns and ammunition, were in good working order.

The ff did not trust government maintain a free state. There were two primary reasons. The first was that when Washington tried to put together armies, the arms and ammo held by hamlets in a central, government controlled armory were useless. They had not been maintained. Guns were rusted and broken; ammo, old and the powder, damp. An individual takes better care of his property.

The second reason was out of concern that the government would not want to maintain a free state. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (Thomas Jefferson, of course).

As long as the Second Amendment is respected, the only way an enemy could defeat the US would be to destroy it. An army could not win fighting street-to-street against a well-armed citizenry using guerilla tactics.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  jtom
August 29, 2019 1:22 pm

ad hoc group

Not really ‘ad hoc’. Look at “Second Congress, First Sitting, Chapter 33” which details ‘who’ and ‘what’ for the US militia.. The “what” includes a “sufficient bayonet” – these men were to provide themselves with the same arms that would be used by a European soldier.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
August 29, 2019 3:44 pm

“ad hoc” isn’t about how they were armed. “ad hoc” means how they were formed into a fighting unit. They were not regular soldiers stationed at a post and assigned to a unit. If “settlement A” was being beset by robbers the citizens of that settlement would form an “ad hoc” (i.e. formed at that specific time and made up of who was available) militia to handle the threat. Sort of like a “posse” in the Hollywood sense portrayed in the old westerns.

Adam Selene
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 29, 2019 8:47 am

Great Rant!

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 1, 2019 6:46 am

The preamble simply states why the right is important.

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

It sounds better as originally written, but the meaning is the same. Though that comma is strange.

Note that the right is assumed, that it is not being granted by the 2nd. It exists. It is being recognized. And must not be infringed because the militia is critical to a free state.

As stated in Federalist 29, the militia is the people. And that creates a DUTY for them. Being armed isn’t just a right, it is a duty. The people should be prepared to come to the aid of themselves, their families, their neighbors, their communities, and their states.

And NOT their country. It was expected that the States would come to the aid of the country, bringing their militias into play.

The War Against Southern Freedom changed it as a practical matter. The destruction of a company could leave an entire town without any menfolk. The military started to disperse the men to far flung units afterwards, so no one community or state would bear the total loss of a unit.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 28, 2019 11:13 pm

I was searching for Michael Moore’s latest movie and stumbled on this interesting presentation with a similar name.

One of the things that sets humans apart from other creatures is our ability to throw accurately. We’re amazing.

It is common among mammals for a single strong male to drive out all the competing males and keep the females for himself. In humans though, a group of lesser males armed with stones can take down the strong man. It’s tremendously democratizing.

I think the reason Britain led the way in universal suffrage was that every English man had to train in archery. Bows were cheap and everybody had one and knew how to use it. The powerful had to pay attention to the population.

Mao was right about one thing. Political power grows from the muzzle of a gun. link In that regard, an armed population is a bulwark protecting democracy.

The solution to gun crime in America is not to take away guns. Switzerland stands as an example of a country where everyone had a gun in the closet and also had a low crime rate. I would say that compulsory military service has had a beneficial effect on social cohesion for Switzerland and Israel. It might not be such a bad idea for America.

Reply to  commieBob
August 29, 2019 1:21 am

Coersion for any reason is anathema to a free society. Freedom isn’t purchased by forcing people to be free. Freedom starts with self ownership, you own yourself and by logical extension those things which you properly possess.

The Swiss modeled their constitution on our original Articles of Confederation, thus the name of the country Confederatio Helvetia. They do not generally speaking have social cohesion. Only when external groups try to coerce the government into some action, and then the national debate rages on…

Reply to  wsbriggs
August 29, 2019 9:06 am

Coercion for any reason is anathema.
However, freedom and personal property ownership only extends as far as you can protect it.
Absent the rule of law, the rule of the jungle applies. Laws only exist as long as they are agreed to and enforced by a society.
Sooner of later you’re going to have to pick up a stone to enforce the laws and “coerce” others to comply.

Reply to  commieBob
August 29, 2019 1:30 am


Compulsory military service is a noble objective in my opinion however, it’s an extraordinarily expensive exercise.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  commieBob
August 29, 2019 1:46 am

The first part raises an interesting question, Bob. Would our new Lord Protector, Boris the Terrible, have been able to suspend Parliament if the people had the right to bear arms?

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 29, 2019 2:59 am

He hasn’t suspended parliament. And if we bore arms, we would have left the EU a year ago.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Phoenix44
August 29, 2019 4:12 am

Even the Mail calls it ‘suspends parliament’.

And your second point is conjecture.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Phoenix44
August 29, 2019 6:49 am

He hasn’t suspended parliament. And if we bore arms, we would have left the EU years ago.

There, fixed that for you! Then again, if the voting public hadn’t have been lied toby Edward Heath & all the other globulists, we’d never joined it in the first place if they simply said, “Oh by the way, we’re feeding you total & utter bovine faecal content when we say “It’s just a loose collection of trading partners!” That’s what my parents were sold on, lies! Or as the French & Saunders two grimpy old farmers’ wives would say, “Bollocks, buggery, & bullshute!” It ALWAYS was about globulisation & super-state corporatism! Just look at the vile EU remainers, oh how the evil wicked capitalist free-enterprise Americans are going to take over our glorious NHS!”, when the EU was planning the very same deal a few years earlierk, & nobody said a dickiebird in the remainer side!!!! The stench of corruption is almost complete! America resist & fight the totalitarians! The EU is in charge of absolutely everything yet responsible for absolutely nothing! The horsemeat scandal in pre-prepared meals (no issue with it per se), & the breast implant scandal where expensive industrial grade silicon was surplanted by cheaper “industrial” grade silicon, which could cause leaks into the body, stressing & frightening women who’ve already had to endure the horrors of breast cancer! Not one single EU Commissioner was held to account, & largely swept under the carpet & ignored! They earn £100k + on around 4% tax tops, they get tax-free gifts of around £8k per child to “educate” them in the ruling ways of the elites (the UK’s is in Culham, Oxfordshire, & there are at least 14 other such schools around the EU, boy Orwell knew his stuff). The ruling classes are just that, ruling, in charge of everything responsible for nothing! Bloody wars have started for less, & I mean bloody, never heard of a war that wasn’t “bloody”! AND the PDR of EU haven’t stopped wars from breaking out in Europe for 75 years, NATO did that thanks to Britain’s closest & strongest ally, America (alright you got a tad grumpy with us back in 1776, although we did think you were a bit revolting 😉 )!
PS I get thoroughly peed off with the elites & their teat sucking followers living in cloud cuckoo-land!

Reply to  Phoenix44
August 29, 2019 11:12 am


Your original question

” Would our new Lord Protector, Boris the Terrible, have been able to suspend Parliament if the people had the right to bear arms?”

initiates a discussion based on (asking for) conjecture…

Don’t be a boob.

Reply to  Phoenix44
August 29, 2019 2:48 pm


Brilliant. Thank you.

Roll on the 31st!

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 29, 2019 8:40 am

If the people in the UK had arms, it might not be necessary to suspend Parliament. Remember, Boris is doing what the people voted for. It is a significant portion of Parliament who are intent on denying democracy. An armed citizenry might make them more respectful of the outcome of a democratic vote.

Reply to  jtom
August 29, 2019 3:41 pm


We don’t need an armed citizenship.

The public voted in a referendum. Democracy is sovereign.

Parliamentary Democracy was installed to ensure the will of the people was delivered, not the will of the parliamentarians.

In many ways it’s a damn shame that Boris may deliver Brexit without a withdrawal agreement because, were he fail to do so, the now largely discredited, seat of parliamentary democracy might have indeed come under siege, and someones head may well have rolled.

But there are some lessons we can draw from it. Operating referendums under a parliamentary democracy such as ours is insane. It/they should never have happened and hopefully never will again until our parliamentary system is entirely overhauled.

Democratically installed MP’s should never be allowed to misrepresent the majority of their constituents in parliament. If an MP Jumps ship and changes party just because the result of a referendum doesn’t meet with their personal approval, then they should immediately hold a by-election. I personally do not want my Conservative MP deciding that having been voted in as a conservative, he can suddenly represent labour. What access to corruption does that represent?

Convicted and ‘tagged’ criminals should never be allowed to influence the decision of a country in parliament.

Some say Brexit has been a test of Democracy. I don’t agree; it has been a test of our parliamentary system only rescued by Boris reaching out for the nettle, if not yet quite grasping it.

The questions will come if Brexit fails, but it won’t, so the question will remain unanswered; was Boris correct to prorogue parliament.

Personally, I believe he was entitled to do so, for the right reasons, but he did it for the wrong reasons and therefore morally and, possibly, legally he’s wrong.

The real question is, if Boris delivers Brexit on a ‘clean break’ basis (often referred to as a no deal Brexit) would it be acceptable for the remain voting minority to bring to bear the arms they might bear under the American constitution, on the basis that parliamentary democracy has been unfairly manipulated.

And would any of this be solved any more decisively by a militia bearing arms? We roll back Article 50 by force and present our bloodstained signature to the EU? Even Hitler would have had a problem with that one, I’m quite sure.

The justification for the right to bear arms (which I now largely agree with) is tempered with the ability to calmly, rationally and effectively use a weapon when under attack.

Ask any battle hardened soldier. The right to bear arms is a completely different matter from the ability to bear arms.

In much(ish) the same way that (for our American onlookers) Trump lost the popular vote, but he won the college vote, Brexiteers won the popular vote, so should they lose the parliamentarian vote?

Well of course not, because what parliament frequently forgets is that it is nothing more than middle management. It’s not here to make decisions, it exist’s to manage the decisions made by the people. The civil service exist to deliver the detail to the common man.

But for the most part, these people think it’s the other way around.

John the Econ
August 28, 2019 6:34 pm

I wish someone would start an index fund based upon all of these “socially destructive companies” that the eco-fascists would like to divest from. It could trade under “SDC”. A mass selling of these equities would effectively put them on sale. I’m ready to bet my retirement on it.

Reply to  John the Econ
August 28, 2019 7:47 pm


Reply to  John the Econ
August 29, 2019 6:40 am

These people are really frustrated by freedom. They hate it. That’s the only thing that “climate” and guns have in common.

Dan Cody
August 28, 2019 6:40 pm

Guns don’t kill. People do.

August 28, 2019 7:00 pm

The Green blight and scalpel violence are the leading causes of ecological disruption and human casualties, respectively.

August 28, 2019 7:03 pm

Perhaps the University pensions could invest in burning biomass. Hum, largest source of biomass…?

Let’s invest in cutting down and burning the Amazon rain forest. It’s renewable! 🙂

Reply to  joe
August 28, 2019 8:29 pm

joe: Yes. wood is definitely a renewable energy source and, along with cooking, heating and blacksmithing, we can return to using wood burning steam locomotives for trains.

Reply to  John
August 29, 2019 6:31 am

John: “[…] we can return to using wood burning steam locomotives for trains.”

Like! Like! But only because I’m a train nut, particularly the earlier locomotives and cars. They changed the world and were works of mechanical and visual art.

The wood-burners were pretty much responsible for almost denuding the US Northeast of trees until coal fired locomotives put and end to the tree slaughter, but that’s just a minor quibble compared to the wonder of having those beauties chugging along.

Reply to  H.R.
August 29, 2019 3:47 pm


What a well expressed, informed view, of a little acknowledged phenomenon.

Thank you.

August 28, 2019 7:03 pm

South Africa was a case of political separation (“apartheid”), which progressed to blacks lynching blacks, international whites assaulting native whites, and then diverged liberally in other African nations to genocidal levels motivated by diversity (i.e. color judgments).

John Dowling
Reply to  n.n
August 29, 2019 12:18 am

Living in South Africa 1975-1985 I saw the biggest removal of segregation ever seen in that country, the National Party Government started the process in 1975. The 1980’s anti-white hate and hysteria therefore was directed against a reformist Government in favour of the Soviet-backed ANC and South African Communist Party..

Reply to  John Dowling
August 29, 2019 2:07 pm

So, it wasn’t about reform, but about competing interests. The white native interests were targeted by global interests. The dissenting blacks, perhaps in a Hutu/Tutsi cycle of redistributive and retributive change, were lynched by Mandela factions. Progress, monotonic change, unqualified.

Tom Abbott
August 28, 2019 7:10 pm

I thought all those California pension funds were going broke. They’ll be asking Trump for a bailout before you know it.

August 28, 2019 7:11 pm

It’s embarrassing to be a citizen of California.

Michael H Anderson
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 28, 2019 8:23 pm

Rather than be embarrassed, you should be proud of retaining your common sense in the midst of so much pressure to discard it. I lived in Vancouver for 27 years, and always said that though I may be in it, I wasn’t of it. 🙂

Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 29, 2019 11:20 am

If they divest, and the resource return drops, where will they look to make up the difference?

Not that they can meet the guarantee now, as is, but the pensioners are guaranteed a return. If the resources are poorly invested, and return to low for the already underfunded guarantee, then who makes up the difference?

Seems it’s worse than embarrassing (unless you have a way to protect your personal self/resources.

Patrick MJD
August 28, 2019 7:13 pm

Off topic however, Greta arrives in New Your on a “zero carbon” carbon fibre yacht.

John V. Wright
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 28, 2019 10:47 pm

How is she getting home?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  John V. Wright
August 29, 2019 12:14 am

Walking I guess as she is the new “messiah” it seems in the media. I hope they had plenty of human waste bags were used to protect the environment (Ocean) like is practised in the Arctic and Antarctic.

August 28, 2019 7:14 pm

Wow, Warren Zevon?

I’m in; let them divest. I want to pick the carcass of cheap divestment clean. There is profit to be had!

After the lawyers, guns, and money, come buzzards and vultures to clean up what is left.

This is what is called a “Sky Burial.”

Michael H Anderson
August 28, 2019 7:34 pm

Here’s a thought: divest from anything produced in California. Television, movies, pop music, other cultural dross ephemera. It’s do-able and it’s almost all puerile crap aimed at knuckleheads anyway. Why should I support these swine getting filthy rich generating a tsunami of violence p0rn while at the same time decrying gun ownership and telling we peons to downsize our lifestyles?

I went 19 years straight without a TV in my life and in no way felt deprived. Only got one again through marriage. Take the moral high ground: boycott California. Buy produce grown elsewhere too. It’s the only way they’ll ever change!

comment image

Flight Level
Reply to  Michael H Anderson
August 28, 2019 11:02 pm

Quite same here. In the nineties (95 if I remember), German & Swiss media took a sharp leftist hippies green ONG driven heading.

Had enough of debates & features cast to promote socialism and communism, braindead movies. Bombs away, thru the window went the TV set. Not too much fuss, ground floor.

To this day it never came back and I was blessed with a happy old-school unite family.

And without being native English speaking, yes, we all know and often sing that old “Okie from Muskogee” tune. Specifically when we witness acts of hippie virtue signaling.

August 28, 2019 7:43 pm

“Do they have any idea how stupid the phrase “fossil free” is?”

Maybe not

Michael H Anderson
Reply to  Chaamjamal
August 28, 2019 8:10 pm

You have to love the irony of Angelenos having natural bitumen pools right in the heart of their city. Hell, there are working oil wells still. Probably the only interesting thing about the place.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
August 28, 2019 8:34 pm

Fossil-free, perhaps. Carbon-free, no. Carbon-based life, divestment with “consensus”. Wicked weird.

August 28, 2019 8:00 pm

Divestiture is misguided.
Humanity added to natural warming, but from increased water vapor, not increased CO2. NASA/RSS have been measuring water vapor by satellite and reporting it since 1988 at Fig 3 in my blog/analysis at is a graph of the NASA/RSS numerical data. When normalized by dividing by the mean, the NASA/RSS data are corroborated by NCEP R1 and NCEP R2.

Blinded by a misguided focus on the increase in CO2, ‘climate science’ has apparently failed to notice that in the period 1988-2002 about 5 water vapor molecules were added for each CO2 molecule. Since 1900, on average, about 3.6 WV molecules were added for each CO2 molecule. The WV increased about twice as fast as calculated from the average global temperature increase (calculation in Section 8).

According to Spectracalc/Hitran, at zero altitude there are about 24 H2O molecules for each CO2 molecule and each H2O molecule is about 5 times as effective at absorb/emit of thermal (LWIR) radiation emitted from earth surface as a CO2 molecule.

A brief explanation of how CO2, in spite of being a ghg has no significant effect on climate is in the last paragraph of Section 2 in my b/a. A more detailed explanation is provided in as follows: (2nd paragraph after Figure 1): ,,Well above the tropopause, radiation [emitted from molecules there] to space is primarily from CO2 molecules. If you ignore the increase in water vapor near the surface vs time (big mistake), WV averages about 10,000 ppmv. The increase since 1900 in absorbers at ground level is then about 10,410/10,295 = ~ 1%. WV above the tropopause is limited to about 32 ppmv because of the low temperature (~ -50 °C) while the CO2 fraction remains essentially constant with altitude at 410 ppmv; up from about 295 ppmv in 1900. The increase in emitters to space at high altitude (~> 30 km, 0.012 atm), and accounting for the lower atmospheric pressure, is (410 + 32)/(295 + 32) * 0.012 = ~ 1.6%. This easily explains why CO2 increase does not cause significant warming (except at the poles) and might even cause cooling. The exception at the poles (about 13% of earth area) is because it’s cold there at ground level so WV is already very low.,,

1. WV increase is self-limiting so no catastrophe from warming.
2. The increasing water vapor is delaying the average global temperature decline expected by many as a result of the quiet sun and eventual decline of net of ocean surface temperature cycles.
3. CO2 increase has increased plant growth (i.e. food) by at least 15%.

Peter Hannan
August 28, 2019 8:07 pm

“Memorial to UC Regents”? When did they die, and how? Since when does “memorial” mean “memorandum”, or whatever this is supposed to mean?

David Chappell
Reply to  Peter Hannan
August 28, 2019 10:34 pm

It is a legitimate use of the word: “a written statement of facts submitted to a government, authority etc in conjuction with a petition”

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Peter Hannan
August 29, 2019 1:48 am

Peter, good question. Most memorials are carved in stone. They could sample signatures carved in stone presented on wheelbarrows.

August 28, 2019 8:29 pm

Divestment is just another virtue signal and you are using other peoples money to advance your ideology. You can’t lose.

August 28, 2019 8:30 pm

The problem with guns is several-fold. One, government programs including “Fast and Furious”. Two, individuals… criminals who do not obey the law. Three, gang violence. Four, individuals with psychotic breaks, often fueled by drug use. Five, suicides. Six, unarmed first-responders, late arrival of second-responders, and delay or avoidance by second-responders. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is real. Denying law-abiding men and women their civil rights is a double-edged scalpel.

Farmer Ch E retired
August 28, 2019 8:31 pm

Divest in carbon they say (as they top off their gas tanks, use cell phones made from petro-chemicals, and buy Chinese goods made in plants powered by coal).

Len Werner
August 28, 2019 8:46 pm

By golly, if guns are so bad how about the California lawmakers lead by example–start by disarming all the police, park rangers, border control agents, Hollywood body guards….military. Let’s see how the citizens down there make out; it will be entertaining to watch from 1500 miles north.

Incidentally–and I’m not making this up–the North Rim entrance station at the Grand Canyon is closed due to a ‘wasp nest problem’. The standard issue sidearm to park rangers is a Sig Sauer 1911, usually in either 9 mm or 45 ACP caliber. So–federal park rangers are allowed to carry a semi-auto handgun to use against humans….but not a spray can of Wasp-Blaster. Is this rational national behavior?

(And please note that this is not intended as a criticism of America; Canada generally is worse. But even we don’t hold a candle to California; that’s a real special kind down there.)

Reply to  Len Werner
August 29, 2019 11:20 am

lol ! x 10
your last sentence says it all…. Love it

Andre Lauzon
August 28, 2019 9:32 pm

IF you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs………..

Joel O'Bryan
August 28, 2019 9:44 pm

I sent this as a Tip to AW/CTM on the Tip/Notes link but a heads-up to you as well:
*** This IS HUGE!!***
Green heads exploding stuff.

“Energy Companies Set to Get Reprieve on Methane Rules”
“The Trump administration is moving to erase Obama-era rules on methane emissions from the oil-and-gas business, saying the federal government overstepped its authority when it set limits on what scientists say is a significant contributor to climate change.”


Flight Level
August 28, 2019 11:06 pm

Those who massively invest and therefore could equally massively divest do it for a purpose. Making money.

With the bursting green bubble, they need no further guidance on which way to follow.

So all those revolution calls are a blatant display of business ignorance.

M Courtney
August 29, 2019 12:09 am

Carbon Reserves = Spare People?

Ben Vorlich
August 29, 2019 12:26 am

I’m not a financier but I’ve always thought that the only person who actually invests in company is the first person to buy the shares in a company. Thereafter any purchaser isn’t giving any money to the company and is speculating on increasing share value and dividend payments. If they purchase further issues of shares then that is an investment. By divestment these people will hope to drive down the value of the company making it vulnerable to take over and affecting decisions by the company board.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
August 29, 2019 5:57 am

When they have no better current prospects for investing companies may buy back their stock and retain it to sell again when they need cash for investing. You may not see the secondary market as investing, but it’s hard to call it anything else. Most markets have sellers, buyers and speculators (including arbitrageurs). Without speculators markets are illiquid.

Ben Vorlich
August 29, 2019 1:24 am

In these cases what percentage of the electorate voting represents a mandate? Being a UK citizen I don’t know what the rules are in the USA.

August 29, 2019 2:58 am

To sell a stock there must be a buyer. You can stop investing only by having a new person invest (or an existing investor increase their holding). So it is a totally futile gesture.

And most of these companies raise new capital for projects from the bond markets anyway, with equity generated internally.

So just ignorant fools patting themselves on the back for being dumb.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Phoenix44
August 29, 2019 4:21 am

The only real way to divest is to burn your share certificates. Oh, wait, that produces CO2. Oops!

August 29, 2019 4:20 am

“…gun retailers such as Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods.” ?????? How out of touch is this guy?

Dick’s Sporting Goods announced last year that it would no longer sell guns of any kind, or related products, e.g., ammunition, to its customers. The company also destroyed several hundred rather expensive rifles instead of returning them to the manufacturers. Dick’s SG is run by an idiot, not a businessman. This Dodo from LaLaLand needs to bone up on his homework. He’s really out of touch with the rest of the world.

Tom in Florida
August 29, 2019 4:32 am

If you are going to divest from companies with carbon reserves I suggest you start with De Beers.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  David Middleton
August 29, 2019 5:16 am

As Dorian approaches Florida one of my preps is to have a sufficient amount of such carbon on hand in order to supply cooking heat for several days.

Tom in Florida
August 29, 2019 4:34 am

John Garrett
August 29, 2019 4:39 am

Among other things, this “climate divestment” insanity is a perfect example of and partial explanation for the investment performance of passive investing (a/k/a indexing) which has demonstrably trounced the investment results of active investment managers.

Meddling by politicians and activists is just one more distraction and impediment to professional investment managers and their investment performance. When the idiots of the world (e.g., Bill McKibben) start interfering, you can rest assured that bad things will result.

August 29, 2019 5:13 am

Re. the mention of the ownership of firearms, there seems to be a b belief
that following the shootings in Tasmania, that firearms were totally banned.

Wrong, today there are believed to be fro more firearms in Australia, but
legally no semi auto firearms.

As a army person, 1944 to 48, the old .303 Enfield bolt action firearm plus
its clips of bullets were capable of discharging hundreds of aimed shots
very quickly. There is nothing wrong with a good bolt action rifle.

We never had a problem with firearms prior to the Tasmanian shootingbut removing the semi autos has probably raised the level of shooting skill since then.

No way can a socialist type government try to disarm us of the remaining firearms ,we would soon stop them.

By the way it was a Conservative government which enforced the ban on the semi auto weapons.


Bruce Cobb
August 29, 2019 8:00 am

I liken the divest bandwagon to gluing your portfolio to the Greenie pavement. It accomplishes zero, and only hurts you. Total idiocy and insanity.

michael hart
August 29, 2019 9:57 am

Are the “UC faculty on all 10 campuses” really that stupid?

As the article reports, it seems about 77% of them are.

The bigger problem seems to be that such an increasing fraction of Western populations can be so ignorant about what actually makes the world go round and keeps us in our relatively comfortable lifestyles. It is a very serious failing in our education system because that is where the problem is manifestly more intense and pervasive. What kind of school and university courses might help correct this problem?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  michael hart
August 29, 2019 10:52 am


No amount of school or university courses will help. Most people today are too isolated from reality to ever understand it. Ask someone why there are so many wildfires west of the Mississippi and so few east of the Mississippi. 99% of the people can’t give you an answer. Ask them what were two of the most feared natural occurrences on the great plains like those in Kansas. 99% of the people can’t give you an answer. Ask them what a dethatcher is and why it is needed. 99% of the people can’t give you an answer. 99% of them can’t even tell you what thatch is!

Yet all of this has a direct bearing on the fires in South America.

michael hart
August 29, 2019 10:16 am

That article by Jude Clemente at Forbes is seriously refreshing. It’s good to see that there is still space for people who have their head screwed on properly.

Michael Jankowski
August 29, 2019 10:58 am

CA and communities in CA buy weapons, ammo, and gas for law enforcement. Can CA divest from itself?

August 29, 2019 11:45 am

I would suggest massive pension portfolio investments in California high speed rail, PG&E, California real estate, and Mexican debt. Oh and Jerry Brown energy properties and Oakland warehouse apartments.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 29, 2019 12:58 pm

…and don’t forget seaside property like Martha’s Vineyard where Obama the climate alarmist in chief bought a mansion among the rising seas.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 29, 2019 2:11 pm

To be fair, Al Gore-acle is a bigot of “=” quality. That said, though shalt not speak evil of the Profit (sic).

Tombstone Gabby
August 29, 2019 5:07 pm

Tim Gorman. August 29, 2019 at 3:44 pm

“ad hoc” isn’t about how they were armed. “ad hoc” means how they were formed into a fighting unit. They were not regular soldiers stationed at a post and assigned to a unit.

The US Congress specified how they were to be formed into a unit. How they were used? The County Sheriff generally had the authority to ‘call out the militia’ when the “Posse Comitatus” was not enough to counteract a threat.

Wikipedia: “The posse comitatus, in common law, is a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a sheriff – to suppress lawlessness or defend the county. The posse comitatus originated in ninth century England simultaneous with the creation of the office of sheriff.”

Tell you what – check your State’s Statutes for a Posse Comitatus law – that is still on the books. As of about two years ago, California and Arizona (and I checked a couple of others at random) still had that law. The ‘make-up’ of the Posse and the Militia is basically the same, except for age limits. Comments on the Posse include that they should be armed with weapons similar to those in current use by the SO, and use the same ammunition.

I’ll admit that I’ve only seen it one place, but when the New York Police Department was formed (and that’s an interesting Wikipedia read in itself) the Officers were unarmed. If they felt they needed a weapon for a particular situation, they were supposed to ask the nearest citizen to borrow theirs.


(Copy and paste – hence the ‘caps’) Also makes for a good read. The Senate Report is somewhat lengthy – settle down with a beverage and enjoy…..

Derek Colman
August 29, 2019 5:26 pm

Divestment was an idea thought up by wealthy investors. First get the eco loons stirred up to lobby their various funds to divest. Then watch as rapid selling causes share prices to drop. When low enough, buy up the shares and sit on them until the dust settles. Eventually when it’s all forgotten, the shares will rise to their former value which is a reflection of the amount of reserves held. Now sell, and go buy a new luxury yacht, while laughing at the useful idiots who enriched you.

August 31, 2019 3:31 pm

97% agree that they should divest.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights