Billionaire climate activist wants to educate all of you stupid, unsophisticated hicks

posted at 1:01 pm on August 16, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

For all of you mouth breathing, devolved global warming deniers out there, apparently there is finally hope that you’ll be brought out of the darkness. Mega-wealthy hedge fund manager Tom Steyer (who has long since made his own bundles of Benjamins and now has the leisure to devote all of his time to sticking his nose in other people’s business) is terribly worried about your lack of education on settled science matters and is seeking to set matters to rights. Speaking at a recent climate conference held in Aspen, Colorado (and really… where else would this happen but Colorado?) Steyer explained – or possibly Voxsplained – how much work remains to be done in terms of converting the hoi polloi to his cause. (This comes from behind the pay wall at Politico Pro, so I apologize for the lack of linkage.)

“I think if you were to go around to most of the — what I would think of as super-sophisticated people who think about politics and policy more than five minutes a month — we are doing really well,” Steyer said today at a conference in Aspen, Colorado, hosted by the American Renewable Energy Institute. “And the question in the United States of America is how are we doing with everybody else, which is the 99.5 percent of the people whose lives are very busy and complicated and pressing and they don’t have a lot of time to think about the things that don’t immediately impact themselves and their family.

“And I would say on the former we’re kicking ass and in the latter we have a long way to go,” he added. “If we’re going to make a difference, we can’t just hit the people who are focused on policy in the United States. We have to understand how we can reach a much broader audience and make them understand why this is important to them and their families.”

See, they’ve only been able to win over the super-sophisticated people thus far. (Just being nominally sophisticated doesn’t cut the mustard these days, it seems.) But with a bit of education dumbed down to the level where even a bunch of hicks like you might grasp it, there’s still hope!

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) had a few choice words for Mr. Steyer which will save me a lot of snark investment here.

“Since when do we live in a country where only the self-professed ‘super-sophisticated people’ get to make decisions for everyone else? Tom Steyer has spent millions bankrolling candidates and organizations whose efforts are leaving hard-working Americans without work, without economic security and without hope for the future. And, today, he demonstrated once again how totally out-of-touch he is with the priorities of the ‘broad audience’ of Americans he so offensively characterized in Aspen today,” said Laura Sheehan, senior vice president for communications at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). “Perhaps people aren’t as simple-minded as Mr. Steyer thinks, because they certainly aren’t buying what he and his elitist friends are selling. What Mr. Steyer fails to understand is that the American people are, in fact, thinking about what immediately impacts their lives and families because ‘super-sophisticated people’ like himself and President Obama are not.”

Steyer is also displaying more than a bit of hypocrisy here. He’s still personally invested in those nasty, carbon producing fossil fuels himself, even as he chides others to pull their financial support. And those billions of dollars he’s sitting on didn’t come from investing in wind farms. And yet his entire personal agenda these days is to regulate coal-based electricity out of existence if he can manage it. (If you want to see the real world effects on the regular people Steyer is trying to reach and how his favored regulations are “important to them and their families” you can read about the results in Alabama here.)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Please identify “the dataset” that you “used”. “Fraudulent” data means data that is created through fabrication or misrepresentation. Are you saying that the data that you looked at (“the data”) was so created? If so, then where are the data that are not “fraudulent”?

Any sample frame created with two different measuring techniques does not represent the population. Using actual temperatures mixed with composites is a confound. Measurement devices have built-in bias, but as long as the same measurement techniques are used then the bias is known and systemic. The modern data has a tendency to be heteroscedastic and violates normality.

I made no reference to a “hockey stick”. What relevance does that have? I presented graphical representations of combined ocean and atmospheric temperatures for a period of about 125 years. In addition, I provided a representation of the CEI, based on available data. Also provided was a 2013 report of the WMO.

You didn’t, but I did. The hockey stick confirms a systemic desire to create information out of the data where it doesn’t exist.

And, to my knowledge, no atmospheric or climate scientist has ever indicated certainty in their predictions, but rather a range of predictions within which they have, say, a 90% level of confidence. Indeed, in reading IPCC reports, a confidence level is indicated and not a certainty.

And yet we’re asked to believe the predictions of models that predict with certainty the coming apocalypse.

BTW, those reports were based on many millions of measurements from around the globe, and involved teams of scientists and mathematicians working for weeks or months to compile what you see there. Are you claiming to have reproduced the work that they did?

It ain’t that hard. Look in Multivariate Analysis, 7th Edition under univariate analysis. I suggest pay attention to the betas, and check your p values. If you have difficulty with betas, look up Type II error.

itsspideyman on August 17, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Question: “Since when do we live in a country where only the self-professed ‘super-sophisticated people’ get to make decisions for everyone else?”

Answer: Since only the ‘super-sophisticated people’ are getting the welfare from the government in tax breaks and credits.

J_Crater on August 17, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Steyer, you ignorant slut “What’s in your wallet”?

Wade on August 17, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Any sample frame created with two different measuring techniques does not represent the population.

I asked you where is the non-fraudulent data. And again, I ask, where is it?

Every measuring device is different from every other. And every measuring technique is different from every other. That doesn’t suggest or imply fraud. You made a serious charge of fraud, and I am interested in knowing about the fraud.

Now, if you are ascribing difference in methods and instruments to “fraud”, then why are you doing that?

Obviously, we don’t have millions and millions of pieces of temperature data all done with the same instrument and in exactly the same method (how could we?). We always go with the best data we have. And you say that the data is fraudulent (that is, misrepresented or falsified) and I am hoping you will back up your assertion.

The hockey stick confirms a systemic desire to create information out of the data where it doesn’t exist.

Your “hockey stick” is nowhere in any of the three references I provided. It is irrelevant, as far as I’m concerned.

And yet we’re asked to believe the predictions of models that predict with certainty the coming apocalypse

I found no reference to an “apocalypse” in any of those three references that I provided. I never see such a term in scientific literature – why are you using that term?

It ain’t that hard.

You didn’t answer my question – why not?

oakland on August 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM

oakland, where’s the raw data? You still don’t have it? Maybe that’s because it’s been “lost.” All that’s left is biased data.

The modelers are guessing about inputs. The fact that 15 years of flat or declining temperatures fits within a certain number of deviations has nothing to so with the fact that guesses are used for things that remain unknown. And a lot about climate remains unknown.

The Hockey Stick is fraud. Do you know how it was fabricated? And why are you pretending that apocalypse hasn’t been predicted by your global warming priests?

corkie on August 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Hi, didn’t know you were sticking around. Here’s some answers.

I asked you where is the non-fraudulent data. And again, I ask, where is it?

Every measuring device is different from every other. And every measuring technique is different from every other. That doesn’t suggest or imply fraud. You made a serious charge of fraud, and I am interested in knowing about the fraud.

As a researcher, I know that to stick two differently measured datasets together and call them the same is fraud. If I were to reveal this in a peer-review article my career in my field would be toast. If you don’t understand this I can’t help you.

Your “hockey stick” is nowhere in any of the three references I provided. It is irrelevant, as far as I’m concerned.

Of course it is to you. It’s confirmation of fraud. I’d avoid it like the plague if I were you. Fight it every time it’s brought up.

You didn’t answer my question – why not?

It’s a pointless question. However, I used NOAA data, figuring it was the “least” tainted.

I’ll give you a homework assignment. Use your dataset, I don’t care. Download SPSS v.22, take the data, run a univariate analysis, using data as the fixed factor. Watch the Type II error and see how erroneous this whole nonsense is. You can’t be a researcher and declare AGW valid without throwing a bunch of Kentucky windage in.

itsspideyman on August 18, 2014 at 11:22 AM

If I were to reveal this in a peer-review article my career in my field would be toast.

The fraud is even worse since the method wasn’t disclosed anywhere. And since he refused to provide his data, it was only discovered after the Climategate email leaks.

corkie on August 18, 2014 at 12:01 PM

The fraud is even worse since the method wasn’t disclosed anywhere. And since he refused to provide his data, it was only discovered after the Climategate email leaks.

corkie on August 18, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Amen corkie, absolutely right.

What gets me is that any reviewer in this profession could have taken the methodology and run the Monte Carlo test and found the bias. It took an outside professional to recreate the method and run the test. This is what happens in professions where you can choose who reviews your articles.

itsspideyman on August 18, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2