I cannot imagine basing investment decisions on politically-based pseudoscience. SRI has it's place for individuals and organizations with strongly-held beliefs, and I have no problem with that. However, there should be a sound footing in science supporting the proposition to divest an entire industry, the consequences of which could be quite costly if the decision turns out to be faulty. I am well aware of the strong beliefs concerning the scientific basis for climate change caused by human activity. However, it may be an unprovable proposition, and certainly has not been modeled to any satisfactory degree to date. We may never understand the interaction of all the variables involved. As has happened many times through history, a consensus has formed around a theory because the costs of dissent are just too high for many scientists. Politicians love the theory, for it provides support for higher taxes and regulation. Call me skeptical.