Tom Styers on CNN September 14, 2020: "The number one thing we can do is elect a different president who is going to recognize the problem, deal with it forcefully at home, deal with it forcefully overseas. That's actually the only solution we have to this problem --- is honest to God Joe Biden."
Climate Depot's Marc Morano responds: Contrary to Steyer's claims, governments cannot legislate the weather. Climate activists like Steyer think we need more taxes and regulations to somehow stop bad weather and a changing climate. President Obama claimed we could vote for better weather in 2012 as well. Obama: “Climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future. And in this election, you can do something about it.” But America did vote for Obama and we are still dealing with droughts, floods and wildfires! Go figure!"
“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again,” said Climate Depot’s Marc Morano. “The climate activists led by Podesta, Kerry, Holdren and Steyer are desperate to keep ‘climate change’ alive in the presidential campaign, so they are trying to tie climate to COVID and blame both on President Trump.”
With the coronavirus outbreak, however, Democrats and climate activists have sought to whip up outrage by “morphing viral fears into climate fears,” said Mr. Morano, whose “Climate Hustle 2” is expected to be released by early June.
“They are jealous of the swift, all-encompassing virus-induced lockdowns, and they want in on the action,” he said in an email. “Podesta has suspended science and common sense in claims to hold President Trump ‘accountable’ for ‘both COVID-19 and the climate crisis.’ This is all nothing more than lowbrow election-year politicking.”
TOM STEYER: “I will declare a state of emergency on climate on the first day of my presidency. I will use the Executive emergency powers of the presidency to tell companies how they can generate electricity, what kind of cars they can build -- on what schedule, what kind of buildings we’re gonna have, how we are going to use our public lands."
Steyer urges "environmental justice' and warns climate is "a human issue with a huge racial overtone."
"We need to rebuild this country in a climate-smart way...we don't have a choice on this."
At the center of the corruption of climate science discussed here a highly technical scenario of the future (called Representation Concentration Pathway 8.5 or RCP8.5). Over the past decade this particular scenario has moved from an extreme outlier to the center of climate policy discussions.
According to the New York Times, in November 2012, one month after stepping down from the hedge fund he led, Steyer gathered environmental leaders and Democratic party leaders around the kitchen table at his ranch in Pescadero, California. Among those in attendance were Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, and John Podesta, who had founded the Center for American Progress (CAP) in 2003 to promote progressive causes.
Each of Steyer, Bloomberg and Paulson contributed $500,000 to the initial project, which was focused on “making the climate threat feel real, immediate and potentially devastating to the business world.”
For instance, soon after the initial Risky Business report was released in 2014 the Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson funded work was the basis for 11 talks at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, which is the largest annual gathering of climate researchers. The next step was to get the analyses of the project published in the scientific literature where they could influence subsequent research and serve as the basis for authoritative scientific reviews, such as the U.S. National Climate Assessment. For instance, a 2016 paper published in the prestigious journal Science from the Risky Business project introduced the erroneous notion of moving from one RCP scenario to another via policy, comparing “business as usual” (RCP 8.5) and “strongest emissions mitigation” (RCP 2.6). That paper has subsequently been cited 294 times in other academic studies, according to Google Scholar. Despite the obvious methodological flaw, the paper passed peer review and has received little or no criticism.
Let me be clear about what is going on here. There is no hidden conspiracy, all of this is taking place in plain sight and in public. In fact, what is going on here is absolutely genius. We have a well-funded effort to fundamentally change how climate science is characterized in the academic literature, how that science is reported in the media, and ultimately how political discussions and policy options are shaped.
The corruption of climate science has occurred because some of our most important institutions have let us down. The scientific peer-review process has failed to catch obvious methodological errors in research papers. Leading scientific assessments have ignored conflicts of interest and adopted flawed methods. The media has been selectively incurious as to the impact of big money on climate advocacy.
Harvard Mag: These are all important questions—but even they ignore a central certainty that no one appears to be addressing: what Dan Schrag calls “climate change’s dirty little secret.” “Even if we could become carbon-neutral tomorrow,” says the director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, “the climate will keep changing for thousands of years, the ice sheets will keep melting, and the seas will continue to rise.”
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: "So now an allegedly esteemed Harvard professor admits that controlling the climate is futile. Are we supposed to be surprised at this 'secret' that climate skeptics have always known? Even the climate activists will now have to concede that the climate will not stop changing if we refuse to enact the UN Paris pact and the Green New Deal."
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London, points out that “climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor [CO2], is as misguided as it gets. It's scientific nonsense."