|
4) We’re Winning Our War Against ESG Investing
|
|
We at CTUP and a handful of other groups, have made it a priority to end the scourge of the roughly $1 trillion ESG investing scam (which emphasizes climate change and racial justice over profits and rates of return) and, well, more evidence that we are winning. The downward trend of this fad investing strategy is unmistakable as even the New York Times now acknowledges:
E.S.G. investing is shrinking. Investors pulled $2.7 billion out of E.S.G. funds last quarter, the fourth straight quarter of outflows from such funds, according to data from Morningstar. Most of the withdrawals were from two funds: BlackRock’s iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF, and the Parnassus Core Equity Fund, run by the San Francisco-based Parnassus Investments.
|
|
For the first time, U.S. money managers closed more E.S.G. funds than they opened. This may be part of a long overdue shakeout: Following a three-year boom in E.S.G. fund creation, there were 661 in operation at the end of September, up 11 percent since the start of the year.
|
|
|
5) Scientific American: Science Denier
|
|
We have noted previously how the once respectable Scientific American has become little more than a non-science cheerleading squad for trendy left-wing ideas. But in perhaps a new low, the magazine has chosen to willfully discard scientific rigor – because they like mask requirements.
The City Journal explains the latest perversion of truth and science:
Scientific American, which dates to 1845 and touts itself as “the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States,” recently ran an article arguing that scientists should prioritize “reality” over scientific “rigor.” What would make a publication with a name like this one set empirical evidence at odds with reality? Masks, of course.
Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor of the history of science, argued that by “prioritizing scientific rigor” in its mask studies, the Cochrane Library may have “misled the public,” such that “the average person could be confused” about the efficacy of masks. Oreskes criticized Cochrane for its “standard . . . methodological procedures,” as Cochrane bases its “findings on randomized controlled trials, often called the ‘gold standard’ of scientific evidence.” Since RCTs haven’t shown that masks work, she writes, “[i]t’s time those standard procedures were changed.”
|
|
|
|
