SteyerBy Peter Galuszka

A major funder of Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe plans on putting $100 million into this year’s mid-term election races to warn of the danger of climate change and beat back global warming deniers and their conservative financiers.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund founder, plans on targeting the Florida gubernatorial race where Rick Scott, who does not believe that climate change is manmade, is running for election.

Last year, Steyer (photo) helped McAuliffe outraise Republican Kenneth Cuccinelli in political contributions and defeat him. The former attorney general had made an issue of global warming and initiated a campaign to investigate Michael Mann, a former University of Virginia climatologist, who believes that human activity does contribute to global warming. Steyer gave the McAuliffe campaign $11 million.

Conservatives are well-funded by their own advocates, notably the Koch brothers of Kansas whom the Washington Post reports helped raise $400 million for the 2012 elections. The Koch brothers raise much of their funding through political action committees and non-profits such as Americans for Prosperity and the Heartland Institute.

Democrats who likewise have pumped money to raise concerns of global warming include former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Coincidentally, the news of Steyer’s donation plans comes just after the release of a new book “The Sixth Extinction” by New Yorker magazine staff writer Elizabeth Kolbert.

The book notes that the earth has seen five significant extinctions of living organisms and now faces a sixth one that is caused by mankind and carbon emissions. The book has won favorable reviews in such media outlets as the “Wall Street Journal.”

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


4 responses to “Dem Billionaire Runs With Big Dogs”

  1. billsblots Avatar

    Didn’t Democrats and the willing news media try to convince us that billionaire hedge fund founders are evil? Global Warming = huge and influential government grants (read: redistributed money taken from working Americans then used to buy votes). There’s a lot of green in Global Warming. Not environmental green, monetary green. People’s tax payer funded jobs rely on the perpetuation of the political movement known as Global Warming. No science to it, but a lot of “green.” 17 years into rising carbon levels and no increase in global temperatures, the only reason this political movement still has any legs is its deep pocketed purchase power. If you can’t explain the pause, you can’t explain the cause.

  2. Peter wrote, “Michael Mann, a former University of Virginia climatologist, who believes that human activity does contribute to global warming.” The implication, of course, is that those who oppose Michael Mann do *not* believe that human activity contributes to global warming.

    Here’s why it’s frustrating to debate with the GW alarmists. Either they don’t understand the debate (but think they do) or they deliberately misrepresent the debate. The statement that Michael Mann “believes that human activity does contribute to global warming” is absolutely meaningless…. so meaningless that it suggests to me that people who make statements like this really do not understand the debate.

    Among the scientists (I’m not talking about the Rush Limbaugh-listening public now but real scientists) who are skeptical of “Global Warming” as an ideology and mindset, none — as in zero — deny that human activity “contributes” to global warming. Everyone recognizes that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that it contributes at least marginally to warming. There is no debate or controversy over this point.

    The debate is over whether the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is magnified by positive feedback loops (increased water vapor leading to increased cloud cover, leading to more sunlight reflected, that sort of thing) or whether the influence is minor and mostly benign.

    The debate with Michael Mann is not over whether humans contribute to global warming, it’s whether his hockey stick graph, which purportedly shows a dramatic and unprecedented surge in global temperatures over the past 40 or so years, is statistically and scientifically valid. People can debate that point all day long, and the 99% of the population (including me) who doesn’t understand the statistical and scientific arguments most likely will choose the side that they wish to choose based on ideological proclivity. But let’s at very least understand the debate that is occurring — it’s over the merits of the hockey stick graph, not whether man-made CO2 contributes to higher temperatures.

    Peter, LarryG and others live in a bubble in which they aren’t required to confront — or even understand — the arguments made by the skeptics. They tell themselves that the “science is settled,” and that the skeptics are “deniers” whose views are so illegitimate and beyond the pale that they don’t need to be even understood.

    But who are the real deniers here? The ones who *do* understand what is actually being debated or those who don’t?

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Ha! I won’t go through the factual problems with your view of the “hockey” stick but Mann was cleared of any scientific misconduct by the National Science Foundation. UVA defended him against Cuccinelli.
    You fail to address the issues of campaign finance and your previous post saying that the Koch brothers really aren’t big time political contributors.

    Both are very amusing.

  4. Of course UVA defended Mann. He brought in cash. Uncle Sam and foundations fund global warming.

Leave a Reply