Bring It On Tom!

Tom Steyer on Twitter: “If the New York Times wants to sponsor climate skeptics”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Bring It On Tom!

  1. gregole says:

    Ha ha ha! I seriously doubt Tom will live up to his big-mouth. Other blow-hards have made similar challenges – all have backed down or been destroyed in debate. Bring it on indeed.

  2. ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N says:

    Pfft.. As if it’s gonna happen. They’re all too happy to throw down the gauntlet in a fake rage of attempted bravery, but watch them flap about like a fish desperate to get back in the water the moment the challenge is met.

  3. Gator says:

    I would make him eat those words for the rest of his crappy career. “BIO” should be on his tombstone.

  4. rah says:

    Damn Tom, you got the money! Where are the debates between alarmists and skeptics you’ve sponsored? Instead your tweating about what the NYT’s should do? Man up and set up your own debate.

  5. arn says:

    Such a discussion would be dead on arrival for them.
    The reasons that this won’t happen is that the climate denying thing called reality prooves them wrong.
    The available unbiased data=things they can not influence or manipulate has proven them wrong time and time again =polar bear population,skyrocketing house prizes at beach resorts,nor fllooded beaches or disappearing islands(in fact the opposite as hundreds of billions are invested in beach properties and artificial islands) and Hansens prediction that huge parts of manhattan will be under water incl. bridges while in fact there isn’t even a tiny puddle to be found there as 0.0001% “proove” for global warming or the fact that you have to pay 2-4* more for the same house just because it is located at the beach.
    And on top of that-the ice age scare of mainstream science of the 60ies and 70ies+climate gate 1+2.

    climate sceptics would just need 5% of data “adjustment” the AGW cult is using to proove/revive the ice age scare.

    The only way they can win such a debate are underhanded methods.
    Using Alinsky-tactics in combination with emotionalisation and destraction and cherry picked data and starting points.
    and other rhetorik tricks.

    • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N says:

      Not forgetting there’s barely a media outlet that would allow such a debate, or shut it down the moment the skeptic proves AGW’s a fraud. Pretty much what happens on Oz’s Q&A show by their ABC. It’s an echo chamber run by socialists that simply won’t allow dissent, no matter if such dissent actually stops their own children working in a gulag. They’re hell bent on destroying everything and going back to the dark ages because that’s the kind of monsters they are.

      When this all blows back in their faces I’ll be waiting with tar and feathers, and personal tombstones engraved with their lies for all to educate themselves with.

      • Greenleaf says:

        Q&A, infamous for Brian Cox holding up the hockey stick graph, which the passage of time had already shown to be incorrect, yet still receiving cheers from the sheeple audience while the guy who told the truth was ridiculed. And all this on our public broadcaster that our taxes pay for, and which is supposed to be unbiased.

  6. feathers says:

    Tony – I’m in your corner, Hugo Boss sweatshirt and 12,000 years of evidence.

    Start training: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqwuYX3fZZc

    • feathers says:

      BTW, in case you haven’t figured it out – its Tony who’s training outdoors in the “Climate Change” elements. Drago represents the MSM, big tech, democrat, academia cabal (i.e., training inside away from all the harms associated with CO2).

  7. Anon says:

    I don’t think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will allow this. If she can stop Amazon from establishing a new HQ in New York she certainly has more than enough power to prevent the New York Times from sponsoring a Climate Debate. They should check with AOC first, or they will need to cancel the event at the last minute.

  8. MGJ says:

    I suspect they would choose their opponent very carefully. They’d ensure it was some inarticulate ignoramus with some daft ideas all of his own, that they could easily ridicule.

    Ideally he’d have some event in his past so that they could use framing to portray him badly. You know…’I don’t want to misrepresent you, but before we start I should say that you are alt-right and hate the poor’.

    Being Jewish would make it harder to portray you as a white supremacist, though I’m sure they’d try.

    They wouldn’t even let you in the audience!

    • -B- says:

      Exactly. We can see this tactic with finding out what happened on 11-sept-2001 or any other subject where the government lies to us. They always find the least knowledgeable, least articulate people with crazy ideas. This is then used to discredit anyone who doesn’t accept the official narrative.

      The people who show evidence and facts that show the official story is false and don’t offer a crazy alternative series of events are not to be given a platform. And if they are there will be a hostile interviewer and considerable editing.

      Same thing over and over for decades now.

  9. R2Dtoo says:

    I don’t think the Dems can avoid the debate this time around. Too many candidates have already pinned their hats on climate change. I just hope that the Repubs are getting prepared with the most effective counter-arguments. Trump should start including basic issues now. It is time to open up the issue in a format that the press and media can’t avoid. Peanuts from Canada.

  10. DCA says:

    I would pay a lot to watch such a debate. Let the NYT promote the heck out of it and put it on pay-per-view. Do it for charity.

  11. DM says:

    Power the debate solely with its “fair share” of contemporaneously generated green electricity. Broadcast it live from NYC during prime time in the midst of a summer heat wave.

    What could go wrong for Mr. Steyer and other green tyrants?:-} Little or no air conditioning in the venue. Poor lighting. Too little power to broadcast the debate. … A world wide audience sees first hand the adverse consequences for quality of life caused by 100% dependence on “green” energy.

    Why? Solar panels produce little or no power between dusk & dawn. Wind turbine generation plunges during the summer.

  12. Lasse says:

    You better not accept the bet.
    It is warm-told you so it is climate change
    It is cold-told you so it is climate change
    It is wet-told you so it is climate change
    It is dry-told you so it is climate change
    It is normal-Wait a minute-not in a bay in the Antarctic!

  13. Gator says:

    This is what happens when a skeptic tries to debate climate science with an “expert”…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA

    It always ends the same way…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWTJ8iZr7ro

    • Dave N says:

      They said a debate would give “his extreme ideas credibility”. If they were so sure about being right, surely they’d easily be able to show how his ideas are not credible? Right there is a good reason not to trust them, since apparently they have no concept of logic, or at least a very poor one.

  14. The Other Brad says:

    He will not participate. If he even addresses your willingness to debate, he will use the obligatory, leftist, insults. You know them, racists, homophobe, xenophobe and so on and so on. Why debate anything with anyone that is any of those things?

    So don’t hold your breath.

  15. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please…

  16. Joe in Wyo says:

    Wow! Based on toms twitter thread……
    Tony wins!!
    Great job. Love your photos and all that science stuff too…..

  17. Jeffk says:

    Did you all hear this other nut on NPR this morning? These socialists are so predictable — and hypocritical. The progressives made CO2 accelerate globally, so let’s kerp doing what they tell us??
    https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695874069/-uninhabitable-earth-draws-attention-to-3-major-misunderstandings-about-climate

  18. RW says:

    It is not going to happen. Wish it would, but they are not going to come out from behind their castle walls. It’s why the only option is to raze the country side around them and starve them out. Put another way, show everyone else the data, sharpen the argument, and continue to dismantle the market for their snake oil salesman newspapers.

  19. scott allen says:

    The first question I would ask Tom Steyer is,

    You made your billions with Farallon Capitol (who invested in oil and gas exploration) and Maules Creek Coal Mine, don’t you feel that you should return all of that money, if you believe in a carbon free world ?

  20. Where is the reference to the so called sponsoring of a skeptic?

    Confused…

  21. MGJ says:

    Fortunately there is no precedent whatsoever for impartiality such as, say, giving one side the questions in advance. It just couldn’t happen. \s

  22. Disillusioned says:

    Crickets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.