Why Walk into Tom Steyer's Climate-Change Trap, Governor?

By: Nancy Smith | Posted: August 19, 2014 3:55 AM
I Beg to Differ

How does an issue that registers barely a blip on the Who-Gives-a-Hoot Voter Meter manage to compel a governor to give up half an hour on his Tuesday schedule so he can be condescendingly preached to?

That's what is happening today to Florida Gov. Rick Scott. The chief executive, who is all about issues that resonate with Florida voters -- job creation, building a strong economy and fiscal prudence -- apparently felt he had to humor the state media, sit down with scientists and prove he believes climate change is real.

As if Scott is an uneducated dolt with a fourth-grade education.

This is the governor who stood up to the Environmental Protection Agency three years ago, insisting environmental decisions in Florida be based on science, not politics. It's true, in 2011 he said he doesn't believe humans can alter the planet's temperature; but look at the context of the statement: He was brushing off a climate-change discussion at the time, to get on with his agenda of market-driven energy diversity.

Isn't it obvious? Scott can believe in climate change all he wants -- or all the Democrats want him to. In the end he just won't be dialing it up on his radar day to day.

Neither, by the way, will the voters. Any voters -- even Democratic voters. Voters plain don't put climate change at the top of their worry list.

Remember how 28 senators pulled an all-nighter at the Capitol in March, during which they delivered hours and hours of floor speeches about the need for legislative action on climate change? Other than some night of media coverage, the climate-change talkathon failed miserably to thrust the issue into the spotlight.

How come? Because, look at the world, look at the country. Americans, including Floridians, fear clearer and more present dangers -- losing their job, how their kids will afford college, whether their kids will have the same opportunities they had.

A Gallup poll on March 12 explained it all. In the survey conducted March 6-9, only 24 percent of Americans said climate change is something they worry about "a great deal" -- ranking it a lowly No. 14 of 15 political issues.

"Concerns about the environment typically rank low among all Americans, but the current level of worry is even lower than in the past," Gallup wrote in its analysis of the poll results. "... Unless Americans' concern increases, the likelihood of the public's support for significant legislative action on environmental matters is small."

That hasn't stopped Tom Steyer, a San Francisco billionaire who opted in February to give $100 million to Florida Democrats, principally to fight Rick Scott on climate change. He's raising the issue in Florida on a sea of cash through his "charity," NextGen Climate.

So now, what a surprise, Florida Dems and especially the liberal media that prop them up are all aflutter over climate change. Newspaper stories appear regularly to paint a picture of another laughable failure of science dumbie Gov. Rick Scott.

Last week NextGen released its first TV ads attacking Scott. And Monday it issued a pre-meeting-with-the-scientists poke asking someone to please tell the governor "the earth isn't flat" "jellyfish aren't made of jelly" and "nope, the planet isn't 6,000 years old." 

Still, with all the ridicule advancing this set-up job of a meeting today, the governor is apparently OK about it. More than OK, even. "Governor Scott looks forward to the Aug. 19th meeting to discuss Florida’s recent environmental investments, his commitment to the Everglades and water quality standards, and how Florida can maintain its cleanest air quality on record," Scott spokesman John Tupps told the media Friday.

I think the meeting is a trap, but I'm sure the governor can handle it. It should be interesting to see how the media spin it later, writing as they will for an audience that largely doesn't give a pink poop.

Steyer, meanwhile, maintains his political activism is rooted purely in ideology -- “ideas and principles we think are incredibly important,” as he said in a recent interview.

But, one thing to remember before you go: Like so many millionaire and billionaire environmentalists, the man is a huge humbug.

You might enjoy reading the Washington Free Beacon story of how House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., steered more than $1 billion to an infrastructure project that vastly benefited Steyer's hedge fund, San Francisco-based Farallon Capital Management.

Farallon apparently bought up large plots of real estate in San Fran’s burgeoning Mission Bay neighborhood in 2004. The area is now booming and Farallon has sold most of its property there.

But Steyer went from rich to mightily rich on his Pelosi connection, and every election year for the past 10, the House minority leader overpowered any opposition with prodigious fundraising thanks in large part to Steyer's largesse. "We want to support Nancy as much as we can,” the Free Beacon reports Steyer as saying.

Pelosi's support was more than just financial, according to the newspaper. "Pelosi went out of her way to expedite federal backing for the project in the face of bureaucratic hurdles designed to ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds."

Critics say the Mission Bay deal points to a willingness for Steyer to use his considerable clout in Washington to advance his own interests. Similar charges were leveled against him when it was reported that Farallon owned stakes in competitors to the company behind the Keystone pipeline.

He “lined his hypocrite billionaire pockets with our tax dollars,” said Phil Kerpen, president of the conservative group American Commitment.

Amazing, isn't it, how much respect money buys, even for the undeserving.

How much do you think we would be hearing about climate change had there been no Tom Steyer $100 million check?

Reach Nancy Smith at or at 228-282-2423. Twitter: @NancyLBSmith

Comments (39)

9:12AM AUG 20TH 2014
So let me see if I got this straight (below) . . . . on my side of the argument is 97% of world's climate scientists (and their science), the National Academy of Sciences (this country's leading scientists), every major scientific organization that's taken a stand on climate change, and four past Republican directors of EPA, and on your side . . . . . what?? . . .

A few feel good books, FoxNoise, a few actual scientists - many of whom are experts in non-climate sciences as I've previously pointed out on this site, or have already proven themselves as deniers about other issues like smoking and cancer - go ahead, list their names and we can discuss their merits one-by-one (peer-reviewed science only, and there are a few interesting papers) . . . . and then there's that obsession with the climate situation 430 million years ago . . . red-herring grasping at straws, just like during the tobacco debate, rather than have to acknowledge the overwhelming consensus of today's science . . .

So yes, you must be right in your delusions, all those many tinfoil hat arguments must be equitable with the actual science behind my named organizations . . . . . yes, deniers, like birthers . . . more than a little clueless and clearly . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Blaine R. Garrett
2:52PM AUG 20TH 2014
Jeeez, Frank!!!!! C'MON MAN, get a life!
The Swampfox
4:10PM AUG 19TH 2014
The Chicken Little expectation of climate change is another left loon way of ginning up more money for the left under the guise of the environment. Personally, I hold no credibility to the environmentalist movement and their crazy ways of justification stopping progress etc. The Keystone pipeline is a clear example of what I mean; One only has to look at the gas pump prices to realize that not only has this so-called president drove us deeper into debt with a war he is incapable of winning not because we can't but because he is void of leadership and good solid decision making. But the failure to act on building the pipeline. The money we would save on foreign purchases of crude oil from (might I add) the very people that want to destroy America would far outweigh any negative impact that may occur with the environment by constructing the Keystone pipeline. Russian and the Middle East would change their tune real quick. The price of gas would be reasonable again. Remember when Obama was elected and gas was I believe $1.63 a gal.? We would do better than that! Lets switch gears and look at this Steyer character, how does he get around in San Fran with a rickshaw or a limo, does he own a jet like Al Gore the quintessential environmentalist hypocrite who leave a bigger carbon footprint that a sasquatch who has made gazillions off of the environmental movement. With all the loot this Steyer has what would impress me if he decided to live in a hut. Then I would believe he was interested in the environment. No all hypocrites using instead something that everyone is concerned with, our planet and exploiting that for their personal gain. They are experts at talking out of both sides of their mouth while lining their pockets with our money. Amendment 1 that will be on the Florida ballot in November an environmental issue that to me sounds good keeping the everglades and waterways clean without a tax increase!!! how is paid for? Reading the fine print it turns out the amendment wants a set amount every year regardless of deficits, recessions etc. allocated out of the transfer payments made by homes sold. Two things here folks if its written into the Florida Constitution it will be a mandated payment, and if there is a shortfall on the homes sold where do you think the money will come from???? either they increase the cost per home sold or take it out of the state budget. I am all for the environment. Florida is beautiful and home to many species of birds, fish, wildlife and the eco-system in the everglades. We need to make certain this is protected and I believe that Gov. Scott will do that. What I don't believe is to give an organization that has a history of screaming "the sky is going to fall" an open checkbook to write their ticket at the taxpayers expense. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The legislature needs to make certain the do not raid the funds for shortfalls when there are looming concerns with our environment. I say we approach any funding's on an as needed basis. I am not in favor of Amendment 1. As they say, "The devil is in the details."
6:44PM AUG 22ND 2014
Yes, yes, you must be right . . . . the record national average price for a gallon of gasoline in the last decade was never $4.086 (AAA reporting) on June 30, 2008 . . . a little over 4 months before Obama was elected . . . selective politics of the "Big Lie" . . . .

Pathetic . . . .
12:49PM AUG 19TH 2014
At the rate the World is now, human beings will become extinct long before the "climate change" destroys planet Earth.
Bob Webster
10:33AM AUG 19TH 2014
Climate Change is happening. It ALWAYS happens. Humans have nothing to do with it. There is absolutely NOTHING indistinguishable between recent climate change and natural climate change during the Holocene interglacial. Indeed, global cooling is overdue and very likely based on the latest real science (as well as the trends over the past several decades).

The foil hats belong to the crazed environmentalist whack-jobs who cling to their pseudo-scientific nonsense about global warming/climate change cause by a non-pollutant gas that is responsible for all life on Earth, carbon dioxide.

Tell a plant that CO2 is a pollutant. Like telling an animal oxygen is a pollutant.

Get real. Politicians and their administrators are no substitute for real science (not the kind preached by the non-scientists who write the summary reports for the IPCC).

Gov. Scott would do well to shun the human-caused claims of those who financially benefit from the billions of taxpayer dollars annually squandered on this climate change scam.
10:47AM AUG 19TH 2014
Yes, yes, your truthiness must be correct . . . . and scientists with actual degrees in such fields (like me), must ALL be wrong . . . . every major scientific organization says climate change is real, happening and has a major man-made component, but yet your elementary school degree and tinfoil hat hold the truth(iness) . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Bob Webster
11:00AM AUG 19TH 2014
Frank, your appeals to authority cannot displace REAL science. Obviously, you are not qualified when you must claim they all say it. See my comment to you below.

You're going to have a tough time selling the public your claims of human causation when neither you (nor your claimed authorities) can produce a single report that unambiguously can point to the portion of global climate change over the past 200 years that can be directly attributed to human activity.

Problem with your views is they ignore all the highly-respected atmospheric and climate scientists who recognize the fallacy of warmist claims. You will likely dismiss them as paid for by oil industry, despite no such evidence existing -- because that's what warmists do. They do not engage intellectually (running from debates and losing those they do not run from), but rather are reduced to the smarmy tactics of slander and dismissing those with whom they disagree as ill-informed, which is laughable considering the lack of any clear evidence you can provide to support your claim of CO2-caused climate disruption.

No doubt, one of your "scientists" you believe is Al Gore, a man who knowingly lied and misrepresented data in his movie, just to make a fortune from it and (he had hoped) from carbon credit trading schemes.
11:47AM AUG 19TH 2014
Sigh . . . we figured you'd be tinfoil hat enough to try . . . so here are just a few of the actual scientific statements on man's role in Climate Change by national and international scientific organization . . . . . and now I'll wait for yours, since "no scientific body of national or international standing (has) rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change":

2003-2013 - American Geophysical Union. "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes."

2004 - American Chemical Society. "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."

2005 - U.S. National Academy of Sciences. "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

2006 - American Association for the Advancement of Science. "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."

2007 - American Physical Society. "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

2010 - The Geological Society of America. "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."

2011 - American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America. “A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.”

2012 - American Meteorological Society. "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." . . .

Yes, just as you say: Climate Change - "Humans have nothing to do with it" . . . . . just as your major, "well-respected" scientific organizations say (oh, that's right, there aren't any such major recognized scientific organizations, are there) . . .

Rightwing scientific denial . . . . just so . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Bob Webster
11:48AM AUG 19TH 2014

What is pathetic is that you rely on statements from publications bought and paid for money interests supporting this scam. You need to do better research.

Try reading The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon. Read the many accounts of the Climategate (both instances) release showing the small band of "scientists" with a financial and political agenda colluding to create the illusion of authority.

The AMS stance does not represent that of its membership. True of many of these organizations.

But where is your science?

How can you scientifically explain the missing hotspot signature of so-called greenhouse warming that should have been observed in the mid-troposphere (8-12km) of the tropics (+/- 30 degrees latitude)? And the fact that the poles have not warmed (first, according to GHE theory) and, in fact, Antarctica has been cooling for many decades?

If GHT were correct, shouldn't all so-called "greenhouse gases" have some effect on climate?

How do you explain that the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, H2O, that accounts for the vast majority of greenhouse gas interaction with IR radiation, has no effect on temperatures regionally? That is, explain why at the very same latitude when there are no clouds present the daytime temperatures in deserts, with extremely low atmospheric water vapor content, reach vastly higher temperatures than similar sized areas with very high atmospheric water vapor content? Clearly, the greenhouse effect isn't following those diagrams upon which models are based.

See my discussion of historic climate change (to Patricia) for more real science that flies in the face of claims that warming has been unprecedented (when in fact, it is far from that).

So you can stack up your publications and opinions of people in administrative positions of organizations all you want, but, in the end, real science will have the last laugh.

And, quite frankly, your "science" is laughable. But then, we haven't really seen any of your "science" have we?

And here's one for you to show off your mettle as a real scientist:

Explain how, consistent with your Al Gorian belief in the global climate greenhouse warming power of CO2, during the late Ordovician (~430 mya) one of the coldest ever ice eras (a "snowball earth") occurred during a period when Earth's atmospheric CO2 was RISING from 10 times (4100 ppm) to more than 11 times (4600 ppm) current atmospheric CO2?
12:10PM AUG 19TH 2014
Gee . . . . just as I said . . . not one scientific organization supports your truthiness . . . . not one . . . . just more FoxNoise type claims . . . and delusions that scientists, scientific publications and their organizations are being bought and paid for (and therefore lying), along with Republican EPA directors, the National Academy of Sciences . . . . lying all . . . . . hilarious . . . if not downright clinically delusional . . .

So, yes, there's a trap . . . and you just stepped into it . . . it's called reality . . . and it's all conspiring to smack you upside of your head . . .

Science denial is just so . . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Bob Webster
12:12PM AUG 19TH 2014
Yes, I've been trapped into exposing your lack of scientific knowledge.

A trap I'll be glad to be caught in, any time.
Bob Webster
12:10PM AUG 19TH 2014
Frank, you've been exposed.

All you can do is appeal to authority.

You claim to be a scientist, but you display no evidence of scientific discipline or knowledge.

You are content to side with those who claim, "the science is settled."

That very statement is contradictory to real science. Science is NEVER settled where theory is involved.

And a real scientist would understand that. Evidently, you do not.

What you do is pure and simple name-calling. Childish. Because you cannot engage intelligently, you rely on appeals to authority.

Clearly, you have not investigated the warmist claims. You simply accept them as truth.

How do we know this?

Because you cannot engage scientifically.

Which is why warmists run from debates and always lose when they try to engage. Because they are armed with fiction.

Thank you for exposing your vacuous arguments for exactly what they are. Empty of substance.

And, really, do us a favor and try to answer the questions I've posed, particularly the last one dealing with the snowball Earth ice era during a period when Earth's atmospheric CO2 was more than 10 to 11 times higher than it is today!

Answering such questions should be a snap for someone of your vast scientific knowledge.
12:15PM AUG 19TH 2014
To paraphrase what someone very smart once said: "Insanity: denying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." . . . . .

Pathetic . . .
Bob Webster
12:33PM AUG 19TH 2014
That was Einstein, genius.

How about insanity being defined as "one who accepts as truth a proposition for which he has know knowledge, no interest in obtaining knowledge, and no capacity to intelligently engage in discussion of that proposition."

Under that definition, your position is insane.

You are further exposed every time you duck the questions, Frank.

Get off your high horse and see if you can actually provide an intelligent response... to any of the questions I've posed to you.

We're waiting.

We really want to know how Earth's climate could have turned the theory you're so devoted to on its head to produce one of the sharpest and most severe ice eras in its climate history during a period when atmospheric CO2 rose from ~4100 ppm to ~4600 ppm.

We're waiting to see how you can explain that with your Al Gorian "science".

Evidently, when reality contradicts theory, you believe that theory should prevail.

Odd behavior, Frank, for one who claims to be a scientist -- given the Scientific Method informs us that every theory contradicted by observational/experimental reality must be rejected, not doggedly defended with appeals to authority!
12:43PM AUG 19TH 2014
Of course I know it was Einstein . . . one of my three scientific degrees is in physics . . . . but then you'll deny that too, won't you . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Bob Webster
1:13PM AUG 19TH 2014
You can have the last word, Frank.

I'm sure we already know what it will be anyway.

I've got to move on and do something more productive.

Clearly, you have no intention (capacity?) to answer the questions I've put to you. So this is going nowhere.

I write something informative about climate and its history on earth.

I ask you questions pertinent to the subject.

You ignore the questions write short smarmy responses that repeat "deny" and "pathetic" as if they comprised 20% of your entire vocabulary.

This has become pointless.
Bob Webster
1:08PM AUG 19TH 2014
Unlike you, I don't take positions on things I know nothing about. Like your degrees.

But I must say, you're not displaying much evidence of those degrees.

Answer the questions, Frank.

Quit denying they exist.
10:28AM AUG 19TH 2014
Yes, yes, once again, Nancy's got the tinfoil hat spin correct about climate change --> "Who-Gives-a-Hoot" . . . .

I mean, it's not like four previous REPUBLICAN EPA administrators just two months ago gave testimony before Congress that climate change is real, man-made, and critical for the US to address, now is it:

WILLIAM RUCKELHAUS (Nixon, Reagan) - "Several months ago, after talking with one another, the four former EPA administrators sitting in front of you found we were convinced by the overwhelming verdict of scientists that the earth was warming and that we humans were the only controllable contributor to this phenomenon . . . We all feel strongly that something should be done (about climate change) and we should get on with this . . . The IPCC report validates in the strongest terms the science of climate change and the projected impacts . . . We believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the pace and effects of climate change but no legitimate debate over the fact of the earth's warming or over man's contribution . . .This is an extremely complex problem whose solutions are not straightforward. We believe this is no excuse for complacency or not stepping up to our responsibility."

LEE THOMAS (Ronald Reagan) - "We know that communities in our country are already dealing with the effects of the changing climate today. In my state of Florida, we see increasing salt water intrusion infiltrating our drinking water supply due to sea level rise. Coastal communities are dealing with the impact sea level rise is having on their drainage systems, resulting in an investment of more than $300
million to upgrade flood mitigation infrastructure in Miami Beach alone. The economic impact is undeniable, and local governments struggle to address today’s impacts of climate change while trying to anticipate the increased risk it poses in the future . . . We know there are many approaches that can be taken, and all are controversial . . . (EPA's recent moves) once again position the U.S. to demonstrate international leadership."

WILLIAM REILLY (George H. W. Bush) - "While the President has taken many important steps, a full and constructive response is needed from Congress . . . The longer we delay, the more adverse the impacts will be, and the more expensive to address them . . . not only is climate change likely to affect natural resources and public health, but it will have profound effects on our economy."

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN (George W. Bush) - "We have a scientific consensus around this issue. We also need a political consensus . . . The issue has been settled. EPA does have the authority (to regulate carbon omissions). The law says so and the Supreme Court has said so twice. The matter should be put to rest."

Yes, yes, Nancy and SSN . . .once again, living in the 1950's . . . . in flat denial of science and reality . . .

Pathetic . . . . .
Bob Webster
12:41PM AUG 19TH 2014
Another example of "pathetic" (your favorite term is getting a bit tiresome) is Al Gore doggedly sticking with his science fiction when his global warming mentor (a real scientist) did a complete "about face" (upon further review of the science) and warned against accepting the claims of human influence on climate. Al Gore figured he latched on to a gold mine with this and wasn't about to let a little reality get in the way. So he smeared his former mentor (claiming senility) and we know the rest. Pathetic.

Gee, smearing the opposition.

Sound familiar, Frank?


(see, it isn't tiresome when I use the term)
12:46PM AUG 19TH 2014
Gee . . . never once have I raised Al Gore . . . . yet you try to smear me with him . . . . what, don't want to smear Reagan appointees . . . . or is it the 1950's reference you hate . . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Bob Webster
1:07PM AUG 19TH 2014
Well, we're making progress, though just a tidbit.

You've actually gone on record as claiming that to be associated with Al Gore's view of climate change is a "smear". That's quite an accomplishment.

I didn't think it was a "smear" though.

I merely used it to illustrate your similarity to Gore... another one who has no real understanding of the subject he pontificates upon.

And, if you must know, statements by anyone who endorses a discredited Anthropogenic Global Warming theory are simply uninformed. As both you and Gore happen to be (as evidenced by your inability to answer the questions I've put to you).

It may interest you to know that within the scientific community many climate realists were once in the warmist camp until they actually did a little research into the subject on their own. Among these are many notable scientists, including well-known and prominent PhD's in physics, atmospheric physics, climatology, meteorology, etc., some of whom have significant positions teaching in major universities.

According to your view, these scientists fall into your "denialist" category.

Perhaps when you do some research on your own, you might even join them.
Patricia Lavins
10:18AM AUG 19TH 2014
Nancy Smith is just plain wrong in her analysis. In a state more suspectible than other states because of rising sea levels, the electorate is indeed concerned about climate change.

Climate change is in fact a means of assessing whether a candidate is capable of the long range analysis that is going to be so essential throughout the 21st century.

It is long past time for the media to recognize that climate change will affect not only the Florida ecology but also the economy. We should all be grateful that Tom Steyer. I only wish that he would invest in the political campaign of Gabriel Rothblatt who is challenged the anti-science Tea Party incumbent Bill "Birther" Posey.
Bob Webster
10:42AM AUG 19TH 2014
No, Florida will not suffer from rising sea levels because Scott recognizes that the climate change scam is baloney.

Sea level changes have been rising at a constant rate for more than 100 years, far before any claims of human impact. Because sea levels rise when global sea ice decreases during NORMAL climate warming periods that typically last a few hundreds of years.

There is strong evidence that Earth is beginning to enter a cooling period (naturally, of course) following a warm period that followed a cool period that followed a warm period that followed... get the picture?

Global sea ice extent has stopped declining and, for the first time since the recent grand solar maximum (of activity that produces warmer climate), is showing signs of increasing in both the Arctic and Antarctic (where it has been increasing for decades already).

Beach erosion from storms (perfectly natural, particularly on the barrier islands) and flooding from strong storms are both very natural and have nothing to do with CO2 in the atmosphere.

So don't fret, Patricia. And don't claim as "anti-science" those who support real science that opposing the political science responsible for claims of human-caused global warming!
12:29PM AUG 19TH 2014
Funny, no major scientific organization seems to agree with Mr. Webster's "scam" declaration, now do they . . . .

Denial, just so . . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Bob Webster
12:42PM AUG 19TH 2014
There you go again, Frank.

100% appeals to authority.

0% science.


Just answer the question, Frank.
12:48PM AUG 19TH 2014
You've just rejected all the science (except from deniers) . . . .

Deny, deny, deny . . . . it's becoming laughable . . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Bob Webster
12:56PM AUG 19TH 2014
And you have revealed yourself to be completely incapable of engaging intelligently on this issue.

You cannot answer the simple questions I've put to you.

All you can do is claim, "deny, deny, deny"...

How silly.

It is YOU who deny, deny, deny every opportunity to demonstrate that you actually know something about the position you've taken.

You won't answer the questions because you cannot.

Take two words out of your vocabulary, and you wouldn't have anything to say.

Those two words?


6:29AM AUG 19TH 2014
And that's the pity. No one has addressed the seriousness of this climate change and the probable impacts it will have on our Florida. Ms Smith is correct about the media NOT doing a very good job in covering the subject. Reading here for the last few years even the Sunshine State News has failed to cover this possible frightening scenerio. This situation has become much alike Nero playing his fiddle. We'll all sit back, make the little jokes, and basically ignore the warning signs. Meanwhile ice caps continue to melt and disappear into the seas, raising sea levels to all time highs. BUT, no matter as Nancy and her band members continue to play their fiddles alongside government officials. Ignore the warning signs as our peninsula is slowly washed back into the sea.
While I'm not one for jumping into a panic, I do suggest if we want to leave our children and grand children, lay the fiddles down and take a closer look at this climate change scenerio. It may actually surprise you!
Patricia Lavins
10:24AM AUG 19TH 2014
Mark is correct in his assessment. Climate change is not just a one election issue. The future of our planet is dependent on voting into office those who understand this reality. This is not present in the Tea Party incumbent, Bill "Birther" Posey who is seeking re-election in the 8th Congrerssional District; The electorate of the Space and Treasure want Tom Steyer to make an investment in challengers facing the climate change denier. This is precisely why Gabriel Rothblatt's campaign needs the focus to be put onto the dismal anti-environment voting record of Bill "Birther" Posey.
9:07AM AUG 19TH 2014
Mark - sorry to rain on your parade, but the public's right - climate change isn't very important because the evidence isn't there. Temperatures have remained unchanged or declined for the past 17 years, a rapidly rising sea level is a myth, killer hurricanes aren't hitting our shores on a regular basis, and rising CO2 levels just mean a greener planet. The bottom line is that there's no scientific data to suggest humans have a major impact on the planet's temperature or are causing the seas to rise. It's all wishful thinking on the part of folks like you. You need to back away from the climate Kool-ade stand and open your eyes to the truth - which includes the fact that Mr. Steyer made his billions selling fossil fuels. Gov. Scott is addressing the issues that Floridians are concerned about, mainly creating jobs, improving the economy, reining in ridiculous regulations and cutting the size of government. He's doing what we want him to do - not chase after frivolous climate change issues like Crist did when he was governor.
Patricia Lavins
10:36AM AUG 19TH 2014
Wayne is apparently not aware that climate change is not just a rising temperatures issue. It is demonstrated by extreme weather conditions, i.e., Hurricane Sandy hitting New Jersey.

There foolish claim that there is no scientific data to suggest humans have a major impact. Only someone who unaware of what is going on in the world around them would make such a foolish claim.
There is zero evidence that Governor Scott is capable of bringing high paying jobs into Florida.. Effectively addressing climate change is the very thing that is going to improve our economy.

There is zero evidence that there are such things as "ridiculous" regulations. Nor is there any evidence that cutting the size of government had any beneficial effect on the economy,

There is nothing that is "frivolous" about climate change issues. No one such waste a vote on a climate change denier. In the 8th Congressional District which is the Space and Treasure costs there is the potential to improve the economy by attracting highly educated people to do the analysis to save the economy and the ecology. This wil not occur if Tom Steyer is not willing to invest in the candidate of the 21sr century, Gabriel Rothblatt.
12:01PM AUG 19TH 2014
Patricia - sorry to pop your ideological climate bubble, but extreme weather events aren't evidence of man-caused climate change. Scientists who haven't been swept up in the "consensus" nonsense say that any influence of mankind to the earth's climate can't be separated out from natural influences. And I've searched and searched for actual data that says the seas are rapidly rising, but I can't find it. I don't think it exists! Media reports indicate Gov. Scott has had a positive influence on the economy and employment figures in Florida during his tenure. I'm just saying...looks like he's doing a pretty decent job in these areas. You don't seem to understand that the bigger government grows the more it wants from us, because it doesn't generate income - it's dependent on taxes and fees to fund its operations. Smaller government means less of a burden on businesses and us common folks, so we have more money left in our wallets at the end of the month. Bigger government, less money for us; smaller government, more money for you and me - get it? The theory that humankind is causing the climate to change in dangerous ways is all based on climate models, which have proven to be inaccurate and unreliable..all models failed to predict the abatement in temperatures the past 17 years. You probably think it's great that Tom Steyer is using his "dirty dollars" to promote his climate agenda, but you'd likely protest as unfair if the Koch Brothers used their funds to back candidates of their choice. I assume candidate Rothblatt is a (D) so she wants higher taxes, higher regulations, more gov't intervention in our lives, etc.
10:34AM AUG 19TH 2014
Short-sighted, with rightwing science denier blinders on . . . . love that "Kool-ade stand" blurb . . . now which other clueless commenter here on SSN uses that . . . . as always, science denial is just so . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Bob Webster
10:50AM AUG 19TH 2014
What is pathetic, Frank, is people who have no background in climate history, climate change science, meteorology, or any of the relevant sciences related to global climate change (natural) who then pontificate using pseudo-science as espoused by warmist "science for hire" adherents who use a steady stream of public funding (billions each year) to promote their science fiction.

And what can you provide as evidence? Discredited claims of 97% of scientists believing your nonsense? How about the nearly 10,000 PhDs who've gone on record denouncing the human-caused claims of climate change warmists?

Are you even aware that the Greenhouse Effect Theory was discredited in the late 19th century and proven wrong by experiment in 1909 and again within the past several years? Are you aware that real greenhouses do not work as claimed by the GET? They trap air and prevent convective cooling, they do not "trap" IR.

The silly notion that you can get hold of some IR radiation and reflect it back and forth between two surfaces (earth & its atmosphere), warming both, is at the heart of the GET fallacy. There are other more subtle problems that shred the failed theory and there are observable contradictions to the theory (lack of tropical mid-troposphere warming, Antarctic long term cooling during claimed period of human-caused warming, etc.).

But then, it takes real scientific knowledge to understand that.
Patricia Lavins
10:39AM AUG 19TH 2014
Frank is so correct. Unfortunately, it is easy to spot those who ger their science education from the comedy channel known as Fox News,
Bob Webster
11:19AM AUG 19TH 2014
You assume much about things you don't know, not only with respect to climate change and its causes, but about the people you try to discredit, like all warmists, by making accusations you cannot support.

In fact, I do not watch "Fox News".

In fact, I've held a science degree for 50 years and began following meteorology and climatology nearly 60 years ago. I've followed the human-caused-climate-change issue when it first surfaced in the 1970s as fears of a new ice age that many of the same scientists who today claim humans are warming the planet were then claiming humans were the cause of the cooling!

Until you know something about natural climate and natural climate change history, you are unqualified to claim human causation is at work.

Look at the history of climate going back 600 million years through several ice eras (only seven occurred in 3.5 billion years since primitive life formed), none of which have spanned no more than 60 million years.

Note the ice epochs embedded within those ice eras that each span hundreds of thousands to several million years.

Note the ice age/interglacial cycles that are found in these climate eras.

And note the nature of interglacials, those for which we have good data from ice core samples revealing that the current interglacial is the longest of the group.

Earth's typical climate is far warmer than anything humans have ever experienced.


Because at this time in Earth's climate history the planet is in an interglacial of an ice age cycle embedded within an ice epoch of an ice era.

Were you aware of that?

Are you aware that Earth's climate is due to begin a new ice age cycle that will last 80,000 to 100,000 years?

What do you think is more damaging to human existence? Slight warming during typical modulations within an interglacial? Or, severe cold and continental glacials spreading south from the Arctic that will severely reduce crop yields and eventually crush northern lands under hundreds of feet of ice?

Until you come to grips with the reality of natural climate change, including a more informed view of the climate of just the past 2000 years, you will not truly understand this issue.

Neither you nor Frank can demonstrate that climate change of the past 100 years is distinctly different or out of line with natural climate change over the past 7000 years.

Yet, you readily support warmist theory on the basis of crude models based on assumptions that have not been supported by observation. Not very scientific.
12:20PM AUG 19TH 2014
Terminal denial in the face of overwhelming facts otherwise is such a sad fate . . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Bob Webster
12:35PM AUG 19TH 2014
Yes, Frank. We're sorry for your fate. Denial of reality, acceptance of a discredited theory. Sad fate, indeed.

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.