Climate Change, BlackRock, and Municipal Bonds
BlackRock Inc. is in the news for issuing warnings that those who disregard climate change promotions are verging on the commission of malfeasance, or something like that.
Here are a few of the recent media reports:
Title: BlackRock’s Larry Fink sees bond peril for cities over climate change
which includes a dire warning that:
“(Bloomberg) — The head of the world’s largest asset manager has a message for American cities that don’t prepare for climate change: The bond market may not always be so welcoming”.
Title: BlackRock tightens standards for firms on climate change by Dawn Lim and Julie Steinberg, Wall Street Journal, 15 January, 2020 The WSJ article leads with a statement that:
“BlackRock Inc. said it would take a tougher stance against corporations that aren’t providing a full accounting of environmental risks, part of moves by the investment giant to show it is doing more to address investment challenges posed by climate change.”
Yet the fact remains for example, that there is no experiment ever conducted that can demonstrate the greenhouse gas effect. Rather, the favored experiments, taught in high schools practically everywhere only demonstrate that CO2 has a lower heat capacity than dry air, which is the OPPOSITE of the greenhouse effect.
Also, scientific climate papers are a dime a dozen, and most of them are irreproducible to their core. But this paper  cannot be dismissed, because it reproducibly demonstrates for the first time, applications of accurate solar cycle based climate forecasting for years in advance. In contrast, all of the UN IPCC endorsed climate change models relied upon by BlackRock appear so far to fall into the category of the most inaccurate climate forecasts of all time. These facts are not to be disregarded by experts who claim both good faith in their scientific due diligence work and certainty in their projections of climate doom.
The climate change experts favored by BlackRock Inc. likely would assert that there is no such thing as a solar cycle that can influence today’s climate. Given my work, I have an opinion that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas which can influence today’s climate. BlackRock’s experts and I cannot each be right. I’ve done some of the heavy lifting to provide a solid basis for the positions on solar forcing of climate over decadal scales. It is any others’ fiduciary duty to examine this challenging paper against greenhouse gas based causality promotions.
One needn’t rely on my published forecasts or work. Why for example would any investment be made when millions of salient data points are omitted from an analysis? That happens to be the case of the data used to assert that the oceans are acidifying, the pH measurements. Ocean acidification, as corporate titans Teresa Heinz Kerry and Wendy Schmidt* appear to believe, is Climate Change’s evil twin. They are used to promote each other because data will support neither. And yes, we fund the lion’s share of that work, not them. This web site contains additional direct challenges to many related notions including ozone.
Obviously climate change and/or ocean acidification and/or ozone hole promotions are not limited to the municipal related investment visions of BlackRock. Many participate in the irreproducibility, if only by reference to UN IPCC climate change promotions. Why else would a legal scholar begin a piece on CORPORATE (NON)DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE CHANGE INFORMATION  with an unverified assertion that:
“As the impacts of climate change become increasingly severe and perceptible, corporations that continue to disregard the risks created by the Earth’s shifting climate stand to suffer significant financial harm”
I haven’t perceived any climate change myself. To the best of my understanding he only has recognized the UN IPCC and related cheerleading authors. For my part, until their products improve, I can only recognize the UN IPCC as the agency that supports the development of irreproducible models. From that perspective I wonder if the legal scholar could next explore the risks that are posed by pushing an irreproducible notion relating to finances? UN IPCC documents are not ordinarily citable anyway.
That securities scholastic reference also notes that companies such as Peabody Coal are already under court orders to “refrain from any future representations that the company cannot reasonably predict the impact of climate policies on its future business”. In other words, the court had ordered the coal company to lie. If a court or a customer ordered you to lie, what would you do?
Because of court orders and assertions of confidence by a relative handful of scientists, many believe and promote climate change. But few are as hugely vocal and perhaps intimidating as BlackRock’s position will be. I wonder what they expect hydrologists and others to now do. Should my peers and I now follow the judge’s ruling in the Peabody Coal example and engage in wholesale hydrological misrepresentations? Some may have already and inadvertently joined that chorus of course, as the EARLY SPRING assertion makes clear. But many more of us in the water resources and earth sciences fields, just want to add value. We don’t want to have to misrepresent climate and hydrology facts to the public for a living.
I hope BlackRock, other corporations and securities legal scholars, will do the right thing and revisit the consequences of steering trillions of dollars of other peoples’ and/or other entities’ investment wealth towards epically-irreproducible notions. Meanwhile, no offense to the legal scholar, I only wish to provoke more critical thinking. I am already learning from his work about items of interest. For example, I didn’t know that the SEC has long had a policy on climate change disclosure . I will study that as well.
This is only a blog and only a draft.
 Wallace, M.G., 2019, Application of lagged correlations between solar cycles and hydrosphere components towards sub-decadal forecasts of streamflows in the Western US. Hydrological Sciences Journal, Oxford UK Volume 64 Issue 2. doi: 10.1080/02626667.2019.
 Wasim, R. 2019. CORPORATE (NON)DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE CHANGE INFORMATION Columbia Law Review. https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Wasim-CORPORATE_NONDISCLOSURE_OF_CLIMATE_CHANGE_INFORMATION.pdf
 SEC 2010 Climate Change Disclosure Guidance (cited supra by Wasim)
*both have been involved in ocean acidification promotions that have overlapped into my sphere of research.
855total visits,36visits today