Tom Steyer: Wrong on the facts, economics and morality… And "all in for 2016."

Guest post by David Middleton

If being green was a mental illness, this guy would be the poster child…

HOME | NEWS | POLICY | ENERGY ENVIRONMENT

Dem mega-donor all in for 2016

Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer plans to invest at least as aggressively in the 2016 presidential election as he did last year, when he became the biggest individual donor on either side of American politics.

[…]

Steyer is undeterred by critics who say he squandered more than $75 million of his own money supporting Democratic candidates who promised tough action on climate change — half of whom lost — during the 2014 election cycle.

The California-based former hedge fund manager, who said recently that he had quit investing “cold turkey” to focus full-time on climate change, refutes this charge of failure. He points out that last year was “an absolutely terrible” one for the Democratic Party, which lost control of the Senate to Republicans.

[…]

Steyer sees the 2016 presidential election as his greatest opportunity yet to turn more Americans into climate change activists and to pressure candidates to present detailed plans to reach his target of getting 50 percent of U.S. power from clean energy sources by 2030.

[…]

Steyer has already spent at least $5 million this campaign cycle to convince voters to pressure politicians on climate change. That’s a major investment at this early stage that puts him on pace with the biggest super-PAC donors on the Republican side.

Last week he announced a “seven-figure” advertising campaign in early-voting states, and his super-PAC NextGen Climate is investing heavily in digital technology and has opened offices in four key states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida and Ohio.

[…]

NextGen ran ads attacking the Koch brothers in the midterm election season, but asked whether he would do so again, Steyer said he is now less interested in negativity and more concerned about telling a positive story about why people should care about climate change.

“Their influence is gigantic,” Steyer said of the Kochs.

[…]

“They’re much bigger. They have much more money,” Steyer added. “Of course that’s important. … [But] we have to rely on the fact that the facts are on our side, the morality is on our side and the economics are on our side.

“And, you know if that weren’t true, we wouldn’t have a chance in hell.”

Hey Tom! It ain’t true…

“We have to rely on the fact that the facts are on our side”…

World Surface Temperature Index -vs- Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration since 1997 to present

The facts are:

  1. There has been no global warming since the late 20th century.
  2. The climate is far less sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 than the so-called consensus says it is.
  3. Your “50 by 30” delusion would not affect the Earth’s climate in any statistically significant manner.

“The economics are on our side.”

The economics are on the side of natural gas and nuclear power.

“The morality is on our side.”

WSJ_Lomborg

OPINION COMMENTARY

This Child Doesn’t Need a Solar Panel

Spending billions of dollars on climate-related aid in countries that need help with tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition.

By BJORN LOMBORG

Oct. 21, 2015 6:36 p.m. ET

In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, rich countries and development organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of “climate aid” donors. This effectively means telling the world’s worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria or malnutrition, that what they really need isn’t medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients, but a solar panel. It is terrible news.

[…]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/this-chi…nel-1445466967

The morality is on your side?

Advertisements

84 thoughts on “Tom Steyer: Wrong on the facts, economics and morality… And "all in for 2016."

  1. I always find it fascinating how leftists are constantly whining about how the Koch brothers try to influence politics with their money. But when someone like Steyer donates a hundred times what the Koch’s have, they say nothing. Just because he’s donating to their side, that make it ok.

  2. It has never been about the science or the people only about the power of the elites. Steyer gives money to politicos so he can control their votes.

    • He could accomplish more for green energy by simply using HIS billions to build his own green energy plants.
      Hey Tom; They say that only 47% of fund managers, actually invest their own money in the very funds they manage, and which they try to get us to put our life savings into.
      So why don’t YOU put up or shut up.
      YOU invest YOUR money in the ‘green energy’ plants of YOUR choice.
      Otherwise stop trying to scam the rest of us.
      g

      • There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. We are all born ignorant.
        But nothing could be worse than an ignoramus, with enough money to buy himself a decent education.
        g

        • Considering that we live in a world where -for the first time in human history – all the knowledge of the ages is literally at our fingertips, it’s obscene that ignorance actually seems to rule the day.
          Money isn’t even necessary anymore for the actual information (it’s the sheepskin that costs) – just an internet connection – you don’t even have to blow a buck-fifty on library fines.

      • “nothing could be worse than an ignoramus, with enough money to buy himself a decent education.”
        George, after spending a career at an institution of higher learning, I’ve decided that education is not only bought, it must be sought.

  3. He has a few billion invested in “Green Energy” so of course he’s willing to spend a few million promoting his garbage !!!

  4. Relax – the far left in Ontario, Quebec, and eastern Canada just elected Justin Trudeau. Trudeau will save mankind from global warning. He said so himself. What more do you need? Its been four days since his election – why hasn’t he won the Nobel Peace Prize yet? And WUWT got the nerve to write a piece about Tom who?

    • But the American women do find Justin Trudeau to be quite the hottie, eh? I can hardly wait for the Liberals to introduce the carbon tax, even though our gasoline in Canada is taxed quite enough by every level of government.

      • They’ll introduce a cap and trade system, that allow smuch more room for liberal crony graft and corruption.

    • His greatest achievement to before getting elected was getting a job as a snowboard instructor, or was it as a substitute high school drama teacher. Either way the guy is hardly an expert at anything. Just an entitled rich kid and an heir to the Sinclair fortune. Im very disappointed in my fellow countrymen, or should I say women. Not to mention all the very young voters who voted for legal pot. I just shake my head.
      The world has gone completely bonkers.

      • Many Canadians are disappointed in our fellow countrymen. We tried to tell them this was going to cost us all money and all they could say was “Justin will tax me less.” At least I only have to live in Canada half the year.

      • Mick, I know a lot of women who did not vote for Junior. Many thought he was pretty but considered him a frat boy who’d be a weak leader more inclined to be liked than risk a tough decision that might prove unpopular.

  5. (bold mine)

    The California-based former hedge fund manager, who said recently that he had quit investing “cold turkey” to focus full-time on climate change, […]

    There’s that “climate change” thingy again.
    I wonder if he actually means CO2-based Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? And how does one focus on climate change? Ooooomm… Ooooomm… Ooooomm… ?
    Oh well. So long as he uses only his money and keeps his hands or his purchased-politicians’ hands out of my wallet to focus on climate change, he can have at it.

    • Oh well. So long as he uses only his money and keeps his hands or his purchased-politicians’ hands out of my wallet to focus on climate change, he can have at it.

      Aye, now, there’s the rub, isn’t it?

      • Well we all know that isn’t going to happen, D.J., but if by some miracle it did, then I can’t complain.
        My personal opinion is that the odds of me getting 1st-2nd-3rd places correct in all nine races at 5 different horseracing venues all on the same day are actually slightly better then the odds of Mr. Steyer using his and only his money purely in an altruistic effort to protect the earth from a changing climate. At least my odds have an infinitely small probability of coming through. Mr. Steyer? Not so much.

  6. How does somebody who obviously knows how to become a billionaire get the issues of climate and energy so terribly wrong in the first place?
    If, by “clean” energy, he is referring to wind and solar, one would think that a billionaire would have the brains to sit down with physicists and engineers and come to realize that wind and solar don’t and can’t scale up to base load levels economically and feasibly (if at all). And one would be wrong.
    I guess becoming a billionaire and getting infected with environmentalist religion (as opposed to approaching the issue in an unemotional scientific manner) are not by any means mutually exclusive.

    • If he interpreted the issues rationally he couldn’t scare people into paying rents. Billionaires like Steyer are the group that benefits most from CAGW-derived policies because subsidized “green” energy projects are typically paid-for by tax dollars at higher-than-market rates of return.

  7. “Steyer said he is now less interested in negativity and more concerned about telling a positive story about why people should care about climate change.”
    Hand over your money and sovereignty, OR ELSE the Earth dies and it’ll be your fault. Ya. Real positive.

  8. Is he as outspoken about tax rates on hedge fund managers who enjoy a rich loophole? A lot of tech support for Climate Change mantra comes with a handshake to leave tax reform in low gear. It’s the other Keystone policy speedometer move.

  9. The concept of the post is understood and appreciated. However, the second chart is not helpful. With expository writing – simple is better.
    Under the heading “The economics are on our side.”
    There is a chart titled Gas not wind
    Usually a visual such as this is supposed to be worth 1,000 words toward clarifying and issue. This is a FAIL! By going to the source (shown as the Brookings Institution but actually the secondary ‘realclearenergy’) there are 375 words that are of some help. A quick glance at this chart shows (the red color draws attention) a red I-bar but one has to do a bit of mental calculation to see what this means. However, the chart used “coal baseload” for comparison but coal is not shown. Coal/electricity can keep my freezer doing its job 24/7. It is that simple. Show food in a freezer. Link:
    Show food in a freezer.
    The other visual: World Surface Temperature Index -vs- Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration since 1997 to present – is clear, except for the small “wti” in the upper left corner.

  10. My impression is that the Kochs spend far more than this guy I have never heard of. So where are the links to prove the diarist? The problem with all of this is PACs and the ability to finance all kinds of PACs without disclosure.

    • My impression is that the Kochs spend far more than this guy I have never heard of.

      You’ve never heard of Tom Steyer?
      Perhaps you should reevaluate what sources of information you have allowed to form your impressions.

    • You have never heard of him, but you are positive he spends less than the Kochs do.
      Trolls and self awareness, never the twain shall meet.

    • David do yourself a favor before you embarrass yourself further, Google Steyer. He has spent millions of dollars to get global warming activists and politicians elected.
      He is well known for his mania. And the irony is he made his money mainly through energy investments.
      A simple search would have uncovered these facts. Were you too lazy to Google?

  11. It is remarkable that a person with so many resources can be so poorly informed.
    That actually takes some doing.

  12. “Steyer said he is now less interested in negativity and more concerned about telling a positive story about why people should care about climate change.”
    A ‘positive’ story about climate change? I’m trying to imagine what that could be. Unless Steyer has become a skeptic and is now going to tell the world how CO2 benefits plants and greens the planet, I can’t imagine what story he could tell that would not be full of gloom and doom. Will he try to convince us, like Obama did, that investing in green energy “saves consumers money”? What else could an alarmist say about climate change that would be considered positive?

  13. If Tom Steyer is spending millions of dollars in politics, why hasn’t he gone broke yet? How rich are you that you don’t care if you spend $80,000,000? And when energy is uber-expensive due to his policies, how much will it affect him seeing as $80,000,000 is like pocket change to him?

  14. The trouble with saying “There has been no global warming since the late 20th century” is that, even if true, it will be invalidated as soon as any warming at all occurs. If and when warming resumes, no matter how low the rate, the warmists will claim the critics discredited, and the media will spread that message.

    • Hmmm….But there hasn’t been any warming and the caGW meme from Hanson on (until the meme was changed to “climate change” after the heat turned off) said there would be. That’s not an “if”.
      If what they said would happen but hasn’t (The Pause) does bump in their predicted direction, then, yes, they’ll jump all over it.
      But that doesn’t change the fact that they were wrong from the start. There is no excuse to justify the restrictions they seek to employ.
      The “ca” in “CAGW” is very small indeed.
      That message is being spread by blogs such as this. That’s why some hate them so much.

    • If global warming is tied to Naturally occurring El Niño events rather than man made increases in CO2 levels, then the CAGW hypothesis is disproved.

  15. One thing overlooked is that the present EPA rules are on the edge of being illegal (depending on which lawyer one asks) and 25 states plan to sue the EPA. Therefore all it will take is one Republican president (and presidents historically cycle) to undo it all. Just based on the globull warming meme alone is justification for a Republican prez.

    • Unfortunately we, won’t be able to “undo it all”. We won’t be able to bring back retired plants, or recoup bad investments. The Supreme Court ruled against the EPA policy which shut down plants for mercury and toxics (MATS), but the planes still got shut down and I don’t think (m)any came back.

  16. Tom Steyer is just another radical activist like Tre Arrow.
    Arrow had no money so………..
    “On the afternoon of July 7, 2000, Tre Arrow, perhaps unwittingly, became the idol of a reinvigorated environmental movement: one that was radically creative, action oriented, non-violent and boldly uncompromising. Passion for the wild drove the agile Arrow, barefoot in shorts and a t-shirt, to scale the wall of a U.S. Forest Service Regional Headquarters in downtown Portland, where he would remain perched on a small window ledge for 11 consecutive days.”
    That didn’t work so well so he turned to arson.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/08/28/how-tre-arrow-became-america-s-most-wanted-environmental-quot-terrorist-quot/
    Steyer has a few billion so he can instead live large while spending countless millions trying to get the tooth fairy to fight the CO2 boogeyman.
    Hey Tom, you are no more of a hero than Tre.
    Wise up.

  17. Why al the fuss? Let Steyer spend his money, by the tens of millions! I’m personally cheering him on–spend, spend, spend–spend it Tommy! Spend it all. Sooner or later, you’re gonna run out.

    • It isn’t the spending part that bothers so much as it is his mouth running while doing it. He’s a typical climate campaigner, trying to influence policy, and money talks.

  18. Somebody over at HotAir elicited this absolutely wonderful thought concerning Tom Steyer: ‘The Man In The Red Plaid Neck Ties’. What the commenter recommended (oh, do I wish I could take credit for this) was to find an endangered species on Steyer’s ranch.
    I did a little checking out and discovered that it’s actually feasible. One thing about most wealthy environmentalists is that they love to own properties so the first thing I did was Google for Steyer’s mansions. Well, he’s got his San Francisco mansion that Obama visits, complete with a 40 vehicle motorcade, for fundraising. Steyer’s also got a home on Lake Tahoe. But, the beauty is that he’s got a 2,000 acre ranch in Pescadero. He and his sunrise tattooed wife raise grass fed cattle and some other hoofed munchies on it. The kicker is that the Pescadero Marsh (which is named the Pescadero Marsh because it happens to be in Pescadero) is home to a host of endangered species. Now, I have little doubt that grass munching cattle are not indigenous to Pescadero anymore than Bill Gates’ (an associate, along with Warren Buffett, of Steyer) 66,000 square foot mansion is indigenous to the coast of Washington State. So, those moo things, somehow or another, some way or another, if only in parts per trillion, must somehow, some way, affect those endangered species in the marsh. So, sorry Tom, those cows gotta’ go.
    It’s always easier to dish it out than having to take it. But, having to take it can be a learning experience.

    • Bill Gates’ … mansion … the coast of Washington State.
      Where do you think Bill lives?
      His house is near a freshwater lake.

      • I believe that, if not for the locks at Ballard, Lake Washington (and “lake” Union) would be whole lot lower and would be somewhat salty. Mr. Gates property would be located on a coastal marsh with a varying water surface that would be about 20 feet lower than it is now.
        semantics, I know.
        Wouldn’t it be nice for the good citizens of the greater Seattle area to get on the bandwagon and attempt to restore the costal marshes to their natural, and “very productive”, original state of being. Of course it wouldn’t be really nice for them, but it would be nice for the environment as nice is always defined by people like them.

      • DonM writes:
        … whole lot lower and would be somewhat salty.
        Actually, Lake Washington is now lower by about 9 feet. That drop did have wetland related consequences there, and for Salmon Bay that changed (mostly) from saline to fresh.
        When the Cascadia subduction zone releases, the (real) coast of WA will likely drop about 10 feet and new wetlands will be created.

  19. Steyer has his fingers in a lot of pies here in Canada. He was found to have given over $385 million dollars to a number of environmental organizations to fight the Embridge Gateway pipeline. Ducks unlimited, Suzuki Foundation and Forest First were some of the organizations named in the investigation. When the money was exposed the Canadian government audited some of these same organizations and found that the money was funneled through them to some of our Native groups to help them challenge the approval process for the pipeline. Some of these same environmental organizations also received government grants to study issues and do research. One of the contentious issues during our recent election was that Harper our prime minister was mussel ling scientists that did not agree with him. The real reason for the funding cuts was that these environmental organizations were not in compliance with the rules for receiving government funds because the Steyer money exceeded the allowable amount for charitable donations to these organizations. The penalty was the lose of the government funding. It was never reported that way in our “Unbiased” News media and Harper suffered a lot of credibility over this issue. It is amazing that a guy like Steyer can meddle in another country’s sovereignty with no recourse or a way to stop his illegal operations. The CIA should take notes on this as it was a classic example of how to over throw a government.

  20. I think the Gas not wind chart is being far too kind to wind and solar. Emissions are not relevant to we can chalk them off. And then capacity saved – this can’t be true since in order to allow the economy to function there must be full back-up capacity to cover the intermittence of wind and solar. So chalk that off too and we see that wind and solar are not viable – as we all know. There are media articles over here trying to claim that wind is the cheapest energy in the UK which I am sure is only achieved by some BS about ‘carbon costs’, taxes and subsidies. Nothing like trying to con the public.

  21. Steyer and I have a common trait; I think Morality is on my side as well. But if I tried as hard as I could to force my Morality on some else then I wouldn’t be able to continue the claim.
    Is he an ignorant lowlife or is he a smart, manipulative, power hungry CSer?

  22. Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer

    He may be an environmentalists, but the operative word is billionaire. He is making investments in his financial future. The play is financial not ideological.

    … [Steyers] target of getting 50 percent of U.S. power from clean energy sources by 2030.

    I wonder how many more billions Steyer makes if his millions in political activism gets his goal accepted and acted upon?
    This is how crony capitalism works; partner with politicians and you and your cronies get rich. It works the same for anyone on any part of the political spectrum. America, land of the free, er I mean special interests. The egregious part with Steyer is his best interests lead to economic malaise. Expensive impractical energy is the path to prosperity for Steyer and his cronies but not for anyone else.

  23. He is rather instructive in showing how hedge fund managers and lawyers are alike. Both can be wrong in absolute terms and with the test of time. But they can be big winners from win-the-day tactics and also writing the tax laws in their favor while courting the power elite.

  24. I take issue with the author’s claims that:
    1.There has been no global warming since the late 20th century.
    2.The climate is far less sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 than the so-called consensus says it is.
    Claim #1: In the language of climatology the phrase “global warming” is polysemic. Under the several meanings of this term there has been no global warming since the late 20th century and has been global warming.
    Claim #2: The author implies that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS) is a constant but that TECS is a constant cannot be proved.

Comments are closed.