Climate is changing. Investing needs to, too, says BlackRock

Climate on the earth is changing since 4 billion years, Mr. BlackRock! And it will change et least additional 4 billion years. With or without you and your money.

I love the idea that scientific facts are are to be measured as to whether they are or not democratically valid.

The entire basis of scientific method is the establishment of fact... independent of uninformed "Opinion"
The entire history of democracy is based on folk with uninformed opinion. The bizarre idea that the cumulative opinion of the uninformed, is somehow more dependable and valid than the uninformed opinion of the individual is BS.
And as we all know like assh*les .. we all have an opinion.

When my family have a medical condition I dont hold an online poll. I consult a doctor
If humanity still relied on the judgement of the "democratic" majority over the science of Galileo, Darwin or Pasteur you and I would probably be dead.

Note: scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation.

What may be hidden under these statements may be actually a recognition that the renewable energy has finally been proven viable and starts to reap commercial successes. These are only to snowball as the investments made by the early adopters are paid off and the profits begin to roll in.

Ultimately, however rabidly the opponents of global warming may deny it, they can never argue the other, independent problem with fossil fuels - non-renewability. This is something even a child can understand - once you burn it....pffffffttt...is gone. And is not coming back (not on a human time scale anyway). Can't argue that.

Economically, the renewables are the future of energy. It is only a matter of time.

Statements like these begin to recognize that maybe a buck or two can be made there.

The way the word "democratic" is brandished about with or without justification, even without any regard of what it actually means, is all too telling for the sorry level of what passes as intellectual debate these days. It has become an empty label, a meaningless sacred incantation that is used when one wants to disarm an opponent cheaply in the process of pushing personal or a tribal agenda, which is exactly what this "guest" is trying to do. One might as well just shout "expeliarmus!", it will be more honest at least.

The only other word that is even more abused must be "racist" - but let me not digress.

Democratic should only be uses to matters pertaining to state. The scientific establishment is not a state (more like a tribe, really). And that is discussing the way the scientific enterprise operates. The practice of generating scientific results itself has nothing to do whatsoever with democracy. It is an individual endeavor, or at best one carried out in small groups, which is then assessed by a very small panel of anonymous peer referees (3 being the standard number). Eventually the results, once disseminated in the literature, are to be freely used, checked, verified, attempted to be falsified, etc, by other scientists and in the process of that get incorporated in the vast and growing tapestry of scientific knowledge.

And no, us "so called scientists" do not offer "assumptions". Assumptions are among the inputs of the scientific investigation not the outputs. Science offers information disseminated in the form of peer-reviewed publications. Of course, as my old professor of phys org chem at Ohio State told our class "your conclusions are only as good as your assumptions". Due to the complexity of the natural phenomena, it is impossible not to have any assumptions during a scientific investigation, ever. One just need to be aware of what they are and what their impact is. We "so called scientists" get trained to do so....but I doubt this guest is, from the way he/she writes.

The climate has been changing but not in the current way and at the current pace. Hundreds of thousands of americans die of respiratory illnesses related to air pollution every year. Doesnt that seem something more urgent than developing advanced weapons that cost trillions of dollars?

We could spend 1000s of billions on hard facts on pollution of land, water, and air - Undeniable.
Soil degradation, fish stock depletion, and everything else unsustainable and not renewable.
Without touching "climate change" subject there is a lot to do.

Indeed it will.
However you spectacularly miss the point.
Denying the role of human agency in triggering and accelerating the current changes, a factor overwhelming supported by scientific evidence , is irrational. The fact that major investors are recognizing that without significant changes in environmental standards, the potential for an irreversible climate and environmental crisis before end of the millenium with serious economic consequences is welcome.

The evidence of global warming is 'not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.' -- Wikipedia

Even if the chance of global warming being real is only 1%, it is still worth the effort because we have only one planet. We simply can't afford to be wrong.

Hi RossEdwards,
I very well know the headlines "97% of scientists say...", but there is a mistake: science is not a democratic event! Up to date, no scientist has supplied the proof, that we all affect the climate. All these so called 'scientists' offer only assumptions. Should we really spend so much money (1000s of billions!) based only on assumptions?