Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Warren "Buffett's Shareholders Defeat Motion on Climate Change"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Warren "Buffett's Shareholders Defeat Motion on Climate Change"

    NASA's former top junk scientist, "million dollar bureaucrat" and serial felon James Hansen led an effort to force Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway "to compile a report on the risks to its insurance subsidiaries posed by climate change."

    The moronic motion was narrowly defeated by a margin of 88% to 12%...
    Recapping Buffett's Q&A: Climate change, activist investors, cost cutting, diversity and more

    SUNDAY, MAY 1, 2016 12:00 AM | UPDATED: 12:11 AM, MON MAY 2, 2016.
    By Russell Hubbard, Barbara Soderlin and Cole Epley / World-Herald staff writers

    4:19 p.m. update: A shareholder motion on climate change was defeated Saturday at the annual Berkshire Hathaway meeting in Omaha.
    The Nebraska Peace Foundation, which owns one class A share of Berkshire, succeed in putting to a vote a motion requiring the company to compile a report on the risks to its insurance subsidiaries posed by climate change.

    "Humans are changing the atmosphere," climate scientist James Hansen told the board during a short pitch supporters were allowed to make.
    Hansen also recommended that Berkshire endorse a tax on fossil fuels to make them more expensive and lead to their disuse in favor of renewable sources such as wind power, a field in which Berkshire Hathaway Energy is already a leader via massive turbine farms in Iowa.

    Berkshire management recommended shareholders vote against the proposal, which they did, 531,724 to 69,114.

    [...]

    http://www.omaha.com/money/recapping...c803acabf.html
    Last edited by The Doctor; 02 May 16, 07:16.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    When it comes down to it, an organization like Buffet's is about making a profit not doing what's politically correct. They are not Progressives.

    Comment


    • #3
      Speaking more generally, should corporations be allowed to place the public in danger for the sake of even higher profits? I'm not sure what excites people about billionaires ability to screw us all over and get away with it.
      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
      - Benjamin Franklin

      The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
        Speaking more generally, should corporations be allowed to place the public in danger for the sake of even higher profits?
        No.

        Originally posted by TactiKill
        I'm not sure what excites people about billionaires ability to screw us all over and get away with it.
        How does Berkshire Hathaway's rejection of an idiotic motion on behalf of junk science constitute a billionaire's "ability to screw us all over and get away with it"?
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          Just in case the moronic Exxon-Tobacco analogy might be brought up...
          What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 1)
          Exxon Knew Everything There Was to Know About Climate Change by the Mid-1980s—and Denied It
          And thanks to their willingness to sucker the world, the world is now a chaotic mess.


          By Bill McKibben YESTERDAY 12:13 PM

          A few weeks before the last great international climate conference—2009, in Copenhagen—the e-mail accounts of a few climate scientists were hacked and reviewed for incriminating evidence suggesting that global warming was a charade. Eight separate investigations later concluded that there was literally nothing to “Climategate,” save a few sentences taken completely out of context—but by that time, endless, breathless media accounts about the “scandal” had damaged the prospects for any progress at the conference.

          Now, on the eve of the next global gathering in Paris this December, there’s a new scandal. But this one doesn’t come from an anonymous hacker taking a few sentences out of context. This one comes from months of careful reporting by two separate teams, one at the Pulitzer Prize–winning website Inside Climate News, and other at the Los Angeles Times (with an assist from the Columbia Journalism School). Following separate lines of evidence and document trails, they’ve reached the same bombshell conclusion: ExxonMobil, the world’s largest and most powerful oil company, knew everything there was to know about climate change by the mid-1980s, and then spent the next few decades systematically funding climate denial and lying about the state of the science.

          […]

          http://www.thenation.com/article/exx...and-denied-it/

          These folks are so desperate to create a tobacco company analogy that they really must thing that the ends do justify the means.

          After a cursory review of “the Pulitzer Prize–winning website Inside Climate News” and part one of their “bombshell conclusion,” I can safely conclude that Exxon didn’t know anything that wasn’t already known, published and available to the public.
          Part 1: “Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago“

          At a meeting in Exxon Corporation’s headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world’s use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.

          “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,” Black told Exxon’s Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.

          […]

          Exxon’s research laid the groundwork for a 1982 corporate primer on carbon dioxide and climate change prepared by its environmental affairs office. Marked “not to be distributed externally,” it contained information that “has been given wide circulation to Exxon management.” In it, the company recognized, despite the many lingering unknowns, that heading off global warming “would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.”

          Unless that happened, “there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered,” the primer said, citing independent experts. “Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible.”

          […]

          The “1982 corporate primer” was sourced from publicly available materials from Arrhenius (1896) to Ehrlich & Holdren (1977) to Wang, Yung, Lacis & Hansen (1976). It appears that Exxon relied heavily on a National Research Council publication for this primer, Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment (1979).

          The closest thing to a “smoking gun” that I could find was figure 3 on page 7 of the corporate primer. It is sort of a climate model… It’s a cartoon derived from the NRC publication…



          Figure 1: Exxon’s 1982 “climate model.”

          Out of curiosity, I plotted the Mauna Loa CO2 and HadCRUT4 temperature data at the same scale and overlaid it on Exxon’s “climate model”…



          Figure 2: Exxon was just as wrong as Hansen!!!

          Way back in 1982, Exxon knew what Hansen knew. They knew that CO2 would cause nearly twice as much warming as would actually transpire over the subsequent 30 years.


          What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part Deux, “Same as it ever was.”)






          What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 3, Exxon: The Fork Not Taken)





          “Smoke & Fumes”… The dumbest attack on ExxonMobil evah’




          “Smoke & Fumes,” Part Deux: Exxon Knew “The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.”

          In my previous post on this subject, we examined some of the documents which supposedly proved that ExxonMobil and the oil industry in general “had the underlying knowledge of climate change even 60 years ago.” This is funny for at least two reasons:
          1. Oil companies employ a lot of sedimentary geologists and two of the primary components of sedimentary geology are 1) paleogeography and 2) paleoclimatology. So the oil industry has “had the underlying knowledge of climate change” for a very long time.
          2. ExxonMobil’s (Humble Oil back then) underlying knowledge of climate change was that “the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content [was becoming] very questionable.”

          One of the most damning documents was the 1968 Robinson Report for the American Petroleum Institute (API).
          1968 “THE ROBINSON REPORT”

          In 1968, scientists with the Stanford Research Institute reported to the American Petroleum Institute about their research on atmospheric pollutants of interest to the industry. Summarizing the available science, the scientists saved their starkest warnings for carbon dioxide (CO2). They cautioned that rising levels of CO2 would likely result in rising global temperatures and warned that, if temperatures increased significantly, the result could be melting ice caps, rising sea levels, warming oceans, and serious environmental damage on a global scale.

          One of the reproduced pages from this damning report referenced Möller (1963) as the source of a 1-7 °F rise in temperature due to a 25% rise in atmospheric CO2…



          Well, being a scientist, a sedimentary geologist to be more specific, I was curious. So I looked up Möller (1963) and found the abstract to this seminal publication…
          On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the Earth’s surface and on the climate

          F. Möller

          Abstract

          The numerical value of a temperature change under the influence of a CO2 change as calculated by Plass is valid only for a dry atmosphere. Overlapping of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O in the range around 15 μ essentially diminishes the temperature changes. New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness diminishes the radiation effects but not the temperature changes because under cloudy skies larger temperature changes are needed in order to compensate for an equal change in the downward long-wave radiation. The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with rising temperature causes a self-amplification effect which results in almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = +10° in the above mentioned case. It is shown, however, that the changed radiation conditions are not necessarily compensated for by a temperature change. The effect of an increase in CO2 from 300 to 330 ppm can be compensated for completely by a change in the water vapor content of 3 per cent or by a change in the cloudiness of 1 per cent of its value without the occurrence of temperature changes at all. Thus the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable.

          Journal of Geophysical Research

          Thus the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable.


          This was priceless!!! So I spent $6 to rent the paper for 48 hours. Here are some highlights:
          In this case, we must distinguish between the assumptions that the water vapor content (in cm l.e.) remains unchanged in spite of heating (cooling) of the atmosphere and that it increases (decreases). Constant absolute humidity means that the relative humidity (f) decreases from 75 to 70.34 per cent with a 1° or lowered by 4.66 per cent per deg. According to the above-mentioned calculations, an increase in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm gives us a temperature change ΔT = +1.5° for Δf = -4.66 per cent per deg, and a temperature change ΔT = +9.6° for Δf = 0.

          […]

          We recognize that for Δf = 0.8 per cent per deg the temperature change becomes infinite. Very small variations effect a reversal of sign or huge amplifications.

          It is not too difficult to infer from these numbers that the variation in the radiation budget from a changed CO2 concentration can be compensated for completely without any variation in the surface temperature when the cloudiness is increased by +0.006 or the water vapor content is decreased by -0.07 cm l.e.

          […]

          These are variations in the cloudiness by 1 per cent of its value or in the water vapor content by 3 per cent of its value. No meteorologist or climatologist would dare to determine the mean cloudiness or mean water content of the atmosphere with such accuracy; much less can a change of this order of magnitude be proved or its existence denied. Because of these values the entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is becoming questionable.

          So, way back in 1963, the entire oil industry knew exactly what we know today:

          The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.

          Oddly enough, both water vapor content and relative humidity have declined over recent decades. If I cross plot relative humidity (RH) at 600 mb against HadCRUT4 I get a Δf = -4.72 percent per degree C. This yields a climate sensitivity of about 1.4 °C per doubling of CO2 concentration.



          Reference

          Möller, F. (1963), On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the Earth’s surface and on the climate, J. Geophys. Res., 68(13), 3877–3886, doi:10.1029/JZ068i013p03877.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            No.



            How does Berkshire Hathaway's rejection of an idiotic motion on behalf of junk science constitute a billionaire's "ability to screw us all over and get away with it"?
            As I said, it was a general question put forth as people defending a corporation's ability to harm the public for financial gain seems to be a recurring theme in America. The most egregious being in agriculture. The amount of carcinogens that goes into our food supply is extremely alarming, yet no one seems to care. What's worse is that a lot of farming practices that are common here in America are illegal in other developed countries due to the dangers they pose to humans.

            So situations like the one you bring up really makes me question in general where our priorities are and why some people seem to place corporate interest over their own lives.

            In regards to climate change. I'm not a scientist and won't pretend to be one. But, it is obvious that climate change is real. The only thing debatable is how much we're speeding up the process. At any rate, it is inevitable and unavoidable. But again, in terms of finding the right solution and presenting the right answers to the debate, I don't trust the general public and we know corporations only care for their selves, given the track records in other realms. We know corporations will knowingly misinform or harm the public for their own gain. We also know that not enough people care about these issues to enact change. So when I see this type of narrative I can't help but question what interest is being placed first and whether or not we're getting unbiased answers.
            "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
            - Benjamin Franklin

            The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
              Speaking more generally, should corporations be allowed to place the public in danger for the sake of even higher profits?
              No, when there is a clear danger involved.

              Climate change doesn't present that situation. There is no clear, obvious, immediate danger involved in that. It can't even be attributed with certainty to the things Gorebal Warming advocates say it is. For example, the UN IPCC has been wrong on almost 100% of its 10 year + predictions about climate change. Those are real results versus future predictions. With that lousy a track record, I'd say it would be hard to argue that there is a clear public danger in some company producing CO2 for instance.


              I'm not sure what excites people about billionaires ability to screw us all over and get away with it.
              How are they "...screw(ing) us all over...?" I have part of my IRA invested in Berkshire Hathaway because they make a good return on profit. If that were to fall off as a result of pursuing politically correct goals instead of good economic investments I'd take that money elsewhere.

              I have no real problem that there are people who are rich in the world and that there are those who are poor. Forced wealth redistribution won't fix that problem, and given the outcomes of trying for the past century or more, I'd say it's hurt more than it's helped.

              Comment


              • #8
                How many times have I posted about The SBDC? At least a dozen times and I don't think any of the whiners have looked at it.

                Here it is again. https://www.sba.gov/tools/local-assistance/sbdc

                That you refuse to lift a finger to help yourself is all on you. You could be making a fortune instead of being a cry baby.
                Credo quia absurdum.


                Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                  As I said, it was a general question put forth as people defending a corporation's ability to harm the public for financial gain seems to be a recurring theme in America. The most egregious being in agriculture. The amount of carcinogens that goes into our food supply is extremely alarming, yet no one seems to care. What's worse is that a lot of farming practices that are common here in America are illegal in other developed countries due to the dangers they pose to humans.
                  How about some actual examples?

                  Originally posted by TactiKill J.
                  So situations like the one you bring up really makes me question in general where our priorities are and why some people seem to place corporate interest over their own lives.
                  Tobacco and cigarettes might be a legitimate example of this.

                  The courts ruled that the tobacco industry knew that they were selling a harmful product to the public and covered up evidence that tobacco was a carcinogen. The tobacco industry was subjected to serious financial penalties for this apparent wrong-doing... Yet local, State and Federal governments continue profit off the sale of tobacco products.

                  Which is worse? A company that put its purpose, generating profits for its owners, ahead of the "public good. Or, government, whose purpose is supposed to be the public good, putting its profits ahead of the public good.



                  Originally posted by TactiKill J.
                  In regards to climate change. I'm not a scientist and won't pretend to be one. But, it is obvious that climate change is real. The only thing debatable is how much we're speeding up the process. At any rate, it is inevitable and unavoidable.
                  Climate change is very real, always has been, always will be. No one actually denies this.

                  The degree to which humans are affecting climate change is unknown and probably unknowable. Outside of emotionally charged environmental "science," no one would propose total dislocation of the global economy to alleviate a problem that can't be scientifically defined.


                  Originally posted by TactiKill J.
                  But again, in terms of finding the right solution and presenting the right answers to the debate, I don't trust the general public and we know corporations only care for their selves, given the track records in other realms. We know corporations will knowingly misinform or harm the public for their own gain. We also know that not enough people care about these issues to enact change. So when I see this type of narrative I can't help but question what interest is being placed first and whether or not we're getting unbiased answers.
                  There are no unbiased answers.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                    As I said, it was a general question put forth as people defending a corporation's ability to harm the public for financial gain seems to be a recurring theme in America. The most egregious being in agriculture. The amount of carcinogens that goes into our food supply is extremely alarming, yet no one seems to care. What's worse is that a lot of farming practices that are common here in America are illegal in other developed countries due to the dangers they pose to humans.
                    How many millions have died because DDT was banned? Particularly since much of the "science" used to get it banned has since been proved to be junk this is an example where those doing it weren't held accountable.

                    http://www.junkscience.org/ddtfaq.html

                    I'd say that those who endangered all those millions should be forced to compensate their survivors. Of course, Progressive environmentalists are not about to take responsibility for their irresponsibility are they now...?

                    Hole in the ozone layer? Maybe those who pushed the ban on CFCs should be made to pay the cost of eliminating them now that it's obvious that CFCs didn't cause the hole...

                    So situations like the one you bring up really makes me question in general where our priorities are and why some people seem to place corporate interest over their own lives.
                    Are you really arguing that a corporation, who has many people making it up in terms of a business investment, has no right to an equal position at the table with an individual who is claiming the corporation is harming them?


                    In regards to climate change. I'm not a scientist and won't pretend to be one. But, it is obvious that climate change is real. The only thing debatable is how much we're speeding up the process. At any rate, it is inevitable and unavoidable. But again, in terms of finding the right solution and presenting the right answers to the debate, I don't trust the general public and we know corporations only care for their selves, given the track records in other realms. We know corporations will knowingly misinform or harm the public for their own gain. We also know that not enough people care about these issues to enact change. So when I see this type of narrative I can't help but question what interest is being placed first and whether or not we're getting unbiased answers.
                    There's plenty more to debate. If humanity has some role in it, then the question becomes what is humanity doing to cause that? CO2 exclusively is intuitively wrong. It is also clear that it's scientifically wrong. But, right now the debate is centered on that one gas and nothing else.
                    The myopic stupidity of that makes a strong argument that those pushing control of CO2 as a solution have vested interests and are not really concerned with climate change so much as they are with lining their pockets with cash, just like the "greedy" corporations you despise.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What's wrong with all of this climate idiocy is that humans are powerless to change the weather or the climate, a fact that has been obscured by the constant climatologists' rantings on this forum.

                      But if you're truly worried about a "carbon footprint, leave America immediately and go live in the Third World where you can do your rah-rah thing for the rest of your life without accomplishing a single thing, except that you will finally understand where most of the pollution is coming from.

                      And don't forget those pesky volcanos...
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Oh we 'could' change the climate. Drop a couple thousand H-bombs and we'd be screwed. Other than that we're pissants. One Krakatoa equals more than we've done.
                        Credo quia absurdum.


                        Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                          Oh we 'could' change the climate. Drop a couple thousand H-bombs and we'd be screwed. Other than that we're pissants. One Krakatoa equals more than we've done.
                          Congratulations on seeing the light.

                          So whine and moan about it when it is beyond human control or intervention?

                          Plenty of wrongs to be righted throughout the world that humans CAN change.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Congratulations on seeing the light.

                            So whine and moan about it when it is beyond human control or intervention?

                            Plenty of wrongs to be righted throughout the world that humans CAN change.
                            Get that message thru to the pro-ACC/AGW crowd that want to make legislation/laws/regulations to "save the climate" which will negatively impact the economy, industry, and life styles of the rest of us on this planet.
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X