Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
FT: fund manager David Herro criticizes corporate 'climate appeasers'
Correct link is: ft.com/cms/s/0/0e2d8438-7777-11e5-933d-efcdc3c11c89.html Yet another example of someone out of their element talking about a subject they know little about. Herro has a Master's Degree in Economics from the University of Wisconsin. How does this make him an expert on climate change? As for the data on climate change he claims does not exist, there's plenty of it. Nor is there some conspiracy to silence critics of the science. To the contrary, there is a multi-trillion dollar industry seeking to obfuscate the scientific truth that the change exists. It is rather tiresome to hear these fund managers who because they are successful at making money feel privileged to publicly pontificate on every subject known to man and expect to be taken seriously. It feels a lot like hearing Ben Carson talk about evolution--it's "satanic"--or cite fake Thomas Jefferson quotes on gun control.
OJ, Try this: https://google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=david+herro+climate+change+ft David, Actually, I don't question Herro's skills as a money manager. He has a great track record. But that's part of my point: There are no real Renaissance men any more as the world is full of too much information. But in the U.S. particularly where education is highly specialized it's quite possible for a skilled money manager like Herro to know virtually nothing about climate change and a skilled surgeon like Ben Carson to know nothing about evolution. Yet because they are famous in one area and let's be honest--rich--somehow they presume to be experts in everything. Donald Trump who is skilled at--what?--self-promotion--has this attitude about every subject. A truly educated person I think knows when to speak and when to defer to experts in a specific field.
oh, I know the args, just wondering what would make me wonder generally. If he did something horrible? If he became meth-addicted? If he beat his cat? It is one thing to have wack beliefs, another to bruit them. So what should make one reconsider? And no, I do not question his investing skill thus far. I am thinking I phrased my question weakly.
Yes, search via Google worked, thanks. Good letters from readers. Especially liked this quote: "This is science, not politics (or even economics): not all opinions are equally valid."
Lewis- I really like your paragraph re "Renaissance men". (Renaissance persons? Or is "Renaissance men" grandfathered in as socially acceptable? )
Flying from city to city, country to country, continent to continent as I am sure Mr. Herro does, when he visits potential and current companies to invest in... what do you suppose is David's personal carbon footprint?
Also, do you suppose, being the very successful, long-lived money manager, do you suppose his residence is an 800 sf flat, or a large, energy sucking mansion or high-rise condo?
There appears to be some disagreement in the comments posted by Lewis Branham.
He asserts that one should be an expert on a subject before commenting on it and that there is too much information in the world to allow for a Renaissance man who understands more than one subject.
Thus, if Branham is not an expert on climate science, he is commenting on a subject he does not truly know. Conversely, if he is an expert on climate science, then he is a Renaissance man, since he is also an expert on financial matters. Perhaps he meant to say there are no Renaissance men other than himself.
Whatever his views, he shouldn't have commented on such a topic. I kind of fail to see the reason or upside of commenting on this issue. Why alienate current or potential investors who may feel strongly about the issue?
If you're a fund manager and you believe that invest in that manner but when you're a fund manager and you broadcast a view on a hot button topic like that...if I'm an investor now the fund manager has dragged himself into a debate on a controversial topic? "NEXT ON CNBC: "Meet the fund manager who's a climate change denier!" Who needs that? Again, maybe it's just me.
Also from the article: "...and more recently has built a 7 per cent stake in Glencore, the commodities trading firm."
@pcallum001, You're confusing commenting on a topic as a putative expert, which I did not do, and commenting on someone's comments on a topic, which I did. I fully defer to the experts on climate change, 97% of which agree climate change is happening and is of human origin. There is no contradiction in my statement. If Herro had sourced his claims from valid experts with no financial conflicts of interest they would have more merit. He did not source his claims but assumed the air of an expert himself, which he is not.
Personally, I wouldn't be so quick to defer to experts. In Galileo's day most experts thought the sun revolved around the earth. There can be no argument that climate change is happening, of course, since there is abundant evidence this has been going on since the earth was created. The question is definition of the precise mechanism though which human activity is modifying climate change. The evidence here is more equivocal, mainly because data is somewhat limited. Carbon dioxide is the concensus view, but particulate soot or solar variations are also posited as factors. Models can only really tell you so much when you're considering a multivariate nonlinear system.
@pcallum001 Somehow I feel confident centuries hence no one will consider Herro the next Galileo. Also, as I've already stated in the information age one has no choice but to defer to experts unless one is completely delusional or an inveterate liar who likes to make things up. There's just too much data on too many subjects for any one person to process. So by default we defer to experts. What you are really saying with your statement is that I should defer to the "experts" you are using to discredit climate science without actually stating their names because that argument about Galileo comes straight out of Fox News and the WSJ. And their arguments come straight out of the mouths of the well-paid "experts" from the fossil fuels industry. I've heard the name Galileo and your exact reasoning too many times from them not to recognize it. Since those experts have a financial conflict of interest, I'm more confident in the 97% of scientists not paid by the fossil fuel industry.
"Since those experts have a financial conflict of interest, I'm more confident in the 97% of scientists not paid by the fossil fuel industry."
@LewisBraham- If I were to follow your line of reasoning it would seem to suggest that experts hired by the fossil fuels industry might possibly compromise on their interpretations of the data. Surely that can't be right.
The best quote I've seen applying to Mr. Herro (with whom I am invested - or gambling): "You're entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts." I'm old enough to see that climate change is occurring, and I worry about my grandchildren, but I'm not sure corporations really care. ( Second Northern Sun quote:"I'll believe that corporations are persons when Texas executes one.") His attack is obviously self-serving, perhaps calculatedly so. I doubt he holds enough stock in the individual companies to affect policy, so he does what he hopes might work. Doubt he's dumb enough to believe his statement, but it doesn't cost him much to make it.
Comments
Yet another example of someone out of their element talking about a subject they know little about. Herro has a Master's Degree in Economics from the University of Wisconsin. How does this make him an expert on climate change? As for the data on climate change he claims does not exist, there's plenty of it. Nor is there some conspiracy to silence critics of the science. To the contrary, there is a multi-trillion dollar industry seeking to obfuscate the scientific truth that the change exists. It is rather tiresome to hear these fund managers who because they are successful at making money feel privileged to publicly pontificate on every subject known to man and expect to be taken seriously. It feels a lot like hearing Ben Carson talk about evolution--it's "satanic"--or cite fake Thomas Jefferson quotes on gun control.
David, Actually, I don't question Herro's skills as a money manager. He has a great track record. But that's part of my point: There are no real Renaissance men any more as the world is full of too much information. But in the U.S. particularly where education is highly specialized it's quite possible for a skilled money manager like Herro to know virtually nothing about climate change and a skilled surgeon like Ben Carson to know nothing about evolution. Yet because they are famous in one area and let's be honest--rich--somehow they presume to be experts in everything. Donald Trump who is skilled at--what?--self-promotion--has this attitude about every subject. A truly educated person I think knows when to speak and when to defer to experts in a specific field.
Lewis- I really like your paragraph re "Renaissance men". (Renaissance persons? Or is "Renaissance men" grandfathered in as socially acceptable? )
Also, do you suppose, being the very successful, long-lived money manager, do you suppose his residence is an 800 sf flat, or a large, energy sucking mansion or high-rise condo?
He asserts that one should be an expert on a subject before commenting on it and that there is too much information in the world to allow for a Renaissance man who understands more than one subject.
Thus, if Branham is not an expert on climate science, he is commenting on a subject he does not truly know. Conversely, if he is an expert on climate science, then he is a Renaissance man, since he is also an expert on financial matters. Perhaps he meant to say there are no Renaissance men other than himself.
If you're a fund manager and you believe that invest in that manner but when you're a fund manager and you broadcast a view on a hot button topic like that...if I'm an investor now the fund manager has dragged himself into a debate on a controversial topic? "NEXT ON CNBC: "Meet the fund manager who's a climate change denier!" Who needs that? Again, maybe it's just me.
Also from the article: "...and more recently has built a 7 per cent stake in Glencore, the commodities trading firm."
...Good luck with that.
@LewisBraham- If I were to follow your line of reasoning it would seem to suggest that experts hired by the fossil fuels industry might possibly compromise on their interpretations of the data. Surely that can't be right.
His attack is obviously self-serving, perhaps calculatedly so. I doubt he holds enough stock in the individual companies to affect policy, so he does what he hopes might work. Doubt he's dumb enough to believe his statement, but it doesn't cost him much to make it.