His events have nothing to do with "climate change"
Tom Steyer is worth $1.6 billion or so. He made his fortune through hedge funds 25+ years ago when it was still possible to extract lots of money from the inefficiencies of the markets. These days, the hedge fund industry belongs to the sector of lotteries – and the investors pay hefty service fees to be sure that in average, they will underperform the stock market.
At any rate, he is not only a billionaire but also a moron. The word "moron" understates what he is. He is not just a moron; he is – and I was afraid to say the E-word – an environmentalist. The San Francisco Chronicle told us about a new fund he is paying from his money:
These donations are being presented as charity, something that helps the society. In reality, they contaminate and corrupt the society, make it dumber and less honest, and reduce the potential for the growth and prosperity in the future. These harmful effects occur because numerous sufficiently gullible people are being manipulated into believing claims that are patently false. And these claims are not just some academic questions. They influence policy in a way that costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year and this number may grow to trillions.
Each type of the weather-related phenomena would deserve a special discussion. For example, floods are really not growing. For example, as a percentage of the GDP, the U.S. flood damages have significantly decreased during the last 80 years. Lots of inconclusive data going in both directions exist concerning droughts, too. The Dusty Bowl – the Dirty Thirties – haven't really been surpassed by any more recent era. No clear trend may be found.
Some of the wildfire graphs show no trend; others display an increasing trend. However, has it anything to do with CO2 or at least with the global mean temperature? Aren't e.g. arsonists much more important for the number of wildfires?
If the increased wildfires were due to the warmer temperatures, you would predict that warmer years would experience a higher number of fires, wouldn't you? The climate fearmongers love to talk about the global mean temperature as the ultimate measure of the "catastrophe". Fine. So they predict that in the warmest years, more acres would burn due to wildfires than in other years, right?
What are the warm years? Two often quoted warmest years on the global record are 1998 and 2010. Surely they had to be exceptionally bad years for wildfires, right? Whether you like it or not, that's the prediction of the climate fearmongering – the pseudoscientific religion presenting small, sub-degree changes of the global mean temperature as something that is important for the life on Earth. It's time to check this prediction against the empirical data. Open this page on wildfiretoday.com:
This is one way of checking the possible hypotheses. There are many others. The theories attributing events such as wildfires to the global warming don't seem to work. Because even the global mean temperature doesn't seem to detectably influence the results, the CO2 concentration can't matter, either, because CO2 has at most some small influence on the global mean temperature; all the hypothetical effects of CO2 have to be exerted through the global mean temperature. Incidentally, CO2 is a product of burning and it doesn't burn well so it surely doesn't energize the fires by itself.
But detrimental dishonest morons of Mr Steyer's type don't care about any data. They are on a mission. A mission to brainwash and cripple the American – and perhaps human – society. The idea is that if you manage to brainwash the society, you will partly "own" it so it cannot be a bad investment. I was also stunned by the last paragraph in the San Francisco Chronicle's article:
Steyer, who made his fortune in hedge funds, recently pledged to spend up to $100 million in political campaigns this year against Republican candidates for governor and U.S. Senate who deny that climate change is occurring or oppose reductions in carbon emissions. He and Taylor have also contributed $40 million to establish a center for sustainable energy at Stanford University.Wow, $100 million for an ideologically and pathologically biased purchase of votes just in one year, plus the $40 million funds needed to get some more defective, environmentalist, idiotic pseudoscholars to a prestigious Palo Alto school.
It's terrible. I may be an idealist but I tend to favor the world in which voters choose the parties and candidates according to the voters' own values and interests. I just don't think that the votes should be bought by some people who are ready to pay the money and get certain results. At least the bulk of the votes in democracy shouldn't be decided in this way. And if the society decides that it's OK to allow many votes to be bought, and yes, it's conceivable that one could find some arguments that this could help the society in some ways, everyone should clearly be told so and wealthy people in all parts of the political and ideological spectrum should be encouraged to compete in this new way – not just those who can stomach anything.
If an asshole pays for low-quality – in this case, climate alarmist – candidates' campaigns in order to increase the number of these šitheads who succeed in politics, it's something I call corruption, and because the "preplanned winners" belong to the šittier part of the political spectrum, it's not just corruption but it's corruption that is hurting the political process.
I find this corruption particularly ironic if it is compared with the extreme leftists', environmentalists' complaints about the Koch brothers' alleged funding for climate skeptics. This particular single nobody-moron, I mean Mr Steyer, is paying more in one year to distort the social discourse in the climate alarmist direction than the hypothetical "biggest offenders" on the climate skeptical side – the Koch brothers – have paid in their whole life.
And left-wing media such as the San Francisco Chronicle are close to praising Mr Steyer – for doing exactly the same thing that the Koch brothers are being criticized for, except that on a much more intense and much more corrupt basis. The hypocrisy of these environmentalists and similar scumbags is just stunning.
The silver lining or the good news is that this corruption doesn't really work too well. Even though the climate fearmongering liars beat the climate realists in funds reserved to push the society's opinions about the climate in a certain way by a 1,000-to-1 margin, the number of people who are skeptical about the climate alarmism doesn't seem to be dropping below 50 percent, at least not "safely" below 50 percent. People can't be bought too easily. Most people can't be paid to believe claims about the everyday life (something that they understand rather well) that are self-evidently false.
Mr Steyer is paying $100 million a year to distort political campaigns in the alarmist direction. It's a lot of money if you focus your eyes on this amount of money. But it's just $0.30 per American. You can't really turn an average American to an unhinged alarmist for $0.30. The government is paying the same thing as 100 Tom Steyers but $30 a year isn't really enough to remold an American to a climate fearmonger, either. Mr Steyer is wasting his money and – to remind you of a universal law – the government is wasting our money.