Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Climate Change

How Tom Steyer Used His Money To Fuel Climate Hysteria

Researcher Roger Pielke Jr. was targeted for cautioning that global warming is real but "not the apocalypse."

John Stossel | 5.20.2026 4:05 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
John Stossel is seen next to the globe | Stossel TV
(Stossel TV)

Billionaire Tom Steyer used his money to attack a lone climate researcher.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s research on climate and disaster policy wins awards and is cited by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"My views are entirely mainstream," says Pielke. "My work is cited by all three working groups of the IPCC. There's nothing contrarian."

Both Steyer and Pielke agree that "greenhouse gases warm the climate," but Pielke's sin was saying, "it's not the apocalypse."

Because of that, "the Center for American Progress decided to make me a target," he says.

The center is a lefty group that pushes climate hysteria, running articles claiming, "Climate change is fueling more deadly and destructive floods," "Extreme weather is only intensifying," etc.

Anyone who disagrees is labeled a "climate denier."

Steyer, now running for governor of California, gave the center enough money to run hit piece after hit piece that describes Pielke's work as "fantastical falsehoods," and calls him a "disinformer" who "ignores the data on climate science."

Pielke didn't know who funded the smears until WikiLeaks revealed an email to Steyer from ThinkProgress' editor: "Thanks for your support of this work…it's fair to say, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change."

Think about that.

"Progressive" activists are proud to stop a researcher from writing about what he knows.

Pielke describes his persecution in my new video.

It began after Al Gore's Oscar-winning movie in which Gore claimed that temperature increases create stronger storms.

Pielke had the nerve to disagree.

"Doesn't warmer water create bigger storms?" I ask him.

"All else equal, yes, it does. But the atmosphere is a complicated place. You have things like windshear, which knocks over storms….We haven't observed changes in the frequency or intensity beyond natural variability."

Pielke's research acknowledged that there were "increasing impacts of extreme weather, mostly economic costs and loss of life," but said the impacts were not caused by bigger storms but by "what we build, where we build, how much wealth we have in harm's way."

"When the climate advocacy movement shifted to extreme weather, I was on the 'wrong' side," he adds. "I had a choice to make. Was I going to call things like I see them, or was I going to succumb to pressure to say things that maybe I didn't believe?"

Pielke called it as he saw it, and paid a price.

"There was an enormous effort to try to silence people who had a voice," says Pielke.

Testifying before Congress, Pielke said, "It is misleading…to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or drought have increased."

That information is also in the findings of the IPCC.

But the Obama White House put out a 3,000-word memo attacking him: "Dr. Pielke's statements…are seriously misleading" and "not representative of mainstream views."

"It was the sort of thing your crazy uncle might put on Facebook," laughs Pielke. "I'm the only academic or researcher that any president, including Donald Trump, has ever singled out."

The University of Colorado, where Pielke worked for 24 years, caved in to the pressure. They closed Pielke's research center, canceled his classes, and moved his office into a closet.

"What I went through was not what a university is supposed to be for," says Pielke.

The state-funded school, after dumping Pielke's actual scientific research, now calls "climate change and sustainability…the central focus of our campus-wide initiatives" and hosts silly things like "climate summits" with panels on "youth climate advocacy."

It's so dumb. And so wrong.

Fortunately, Pielke found another job. Now he researches climate at the American Enterprise Institute, one of many think tanks that does research universities once did.

As I write, betting sites have Steyer in second place in California's governor's race.

COPYRIGHT 2026 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: House Transportation Bill Eliminates Obscure Rule That Effectively Bans Driverless Trucks

John Stossel is the host and creator of Stossel TV.

Climate ChangeCaliforniaCampaigns/ElectionsEnergy & EnvironmentPanicMedia CriticismNatural DisastersGreenhouse gases
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (13)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

    Time to ensure no tax payer dollars are going to "the Center for American Progress".

    Should have happened a long time ago but certainly with all the fraud with NGO's and SPLC, billionaires funding riots, protests, Anti Semitism and pure hate should all be gone over.

    Democrats dumping billions of climate change funding when Biden was leaving office. Where did the money go?

    In fact add up all the funding set for climate change and show what was accomplished...

    1. middlefinger   2 months ago

      Accomplished? A lot of politicians and academics getting wealthy trading climate stocks according to the latest state mandates.

    2. TJJ2000   2 months ago

      Maybe that's already in the US Constitution.

  2. Rick James   2 months ago

    But did he mean well?

  3. Michael Ejercito   2 months ago

    Here is Jack Marshall's take.

    https://ethicsalarms.com/2026/05/16/so-now-the-climate-change-hyping-experts-admit-that-their-fear-mongering-models-were-garbage/

    [From your host: I know the headline and graphic is my style and not Ryan’s. The valuable commentary below came out of a thread on the last Open Forum. I decided that it was worthy of a stand-alone guest post, especially since I should have written pretty much the same post when this news was first reported. Also, with this post I am officially Christening “The Climate Change Hysteria Ethics Train Wreck.” I should have done it years ago. JM]

    I’m seeing some news that the IPCC (the International Panel on Climate Change) has rejected the RCP8.5 model as pretty much an impossible scenario. What is significant about this is how much research and how many policies were based on this scenario. With the IPCC actually stating that RCP8.5 is simply not plausible, the foundation for so much of the climate change hysteria has been ripped away.

    To provide a little more detail, RCP8.5 is one of thousands of different models (computer simulations) trying to predict the impact of human activity on climate change up to the year 2100. These models try to take into account factors like human population growth, adoption or rolling back of climate policies, differing degrees of climate forcing due to carbon dioxide (because the science is definitely NOT settled on how much forcing CO2 actually contributes), and a host of other factors. RCP8.5 has always been one of the most extreme models, predicting an increase of 8.5 W/m^2 by 2100. There are scores of other models that are far more modest in their projections, and certainly observed data has favored models that project something closer to 3.4 W/m^2, though even those are diverging from observed data as time goes on.

    The upshot, though, is the sheer scope of how much of the world’s climate policies are based on RCP8.5. From this article, we have

    “Why this matters: these scenarios live in policy. The now-implausible upper-end scenarios — RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0 — are not just academic constructs used in esoteric research. They are embedded in the policies and regulations of most of the world’s largest economies, found across the world’s most important multilateral institutions, and used in the climate stress tests that govern hundreds of billions of dollars in bank capital. National climate impact assessments in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the Netherlands all use RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 as a reference scenario. The Network for Greening the Financial System framework, used by more than 140 central banks, has utilized a “Hot House World” scenario calibrated to RCP8.5 physical risk into the bank stress tests run by the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Banque de France, and the US Federal Reserve. The World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal, which provides the climate diagnostics that feed into the Country Climate and Development Reports for more than 100 client countries, defaults to SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0.”

    We have trillions of dollars worldwide tied into climate policies. Europe is practically destroying itself trying to achieve Net Zero targets. Industries are dying, people are facing energy insecurity, prices are skyrocketing, and the entire continent is growing in unrest over the devastation to livelihoods. All this comes from countries making policies based on a model that people have warned for years is unrealistic. But the good news is at least with the IPCC ruling the scenario implausible, there is no defense for anyone to keep using those high-end scenarios to craft policy.

    Sadly, I’ll bet few policies are actually updated to reflect this ruling.

  4. NoVaNick   2 months ago

    Shitstains like Steyer are a big reason I can’t bring myself to vote democrat, or live in California

    1. AJinNJ   2 months ago

      You should see his tax returns (as required by California law when running for governor).
      2024 return:
      https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2026-primary/steyer-2024.pdf

      All candidate's returns:
      https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/primary-election-june-2-2026/candidate-tax-return

      I'm currently reading "Secret Empires" from Peter Schweizer, gives you a clear view of the insane amounts of corruption among the wealthy. Controligarchs is another good one. It irks me they're a little one-sided (Secret Empires is slightly more balanced), but hopefully people can keep it straight that politicians from both parties do this.

  5. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

    Did he pay booster Bailey directly?

  6. minus the clever name   2 months ago

    There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the
    dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100
    years.

    Lee Zeldin and EPA agree....if you are smarter, more informed, and assured of the opposite , you should consider that this just sidelines hundreds of millions of normal intelligent educated citizens -- and makes you look beholden to others

    1. Zeb   2 months ago

      There is no scientific proof, period. Only hypotheses and evidence.

      A lot of the problem with climate science is that models are considered evidence by many when what they really are are hypotheses.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        If they cannot run models to predict weather a month out, I see no reason to believe their models are good on hundreds of years from now.

        ...especially since none of their predictions come true.

        1. Zeb   2 months ago

          Exactly. When there's a model that makes testable predictions that are reliable, then you have a theory. Until then, it's fancy guess work.

  7. TJJ2000   2 months ago

    In the minds of these fools the 'Guns' against those 'icky' people (Gov-Gun) does everything.
    Including controlling the weather.

    As the climate change BS has demonstrated there is nothing these fools think a 'Gun' can't fix or do. People have grown a pandemic level amount of cognitive dissonance when it comes to what 'government' actually is.

    The 'Gun' monopoly was made to defend Individual Liberty and ensure Justice for all. Not to imagine that gunning down others changes the weather to what you think it should be.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Nicaragua's Regime Drops the Pretense of Democracy

Katarina Hall | 7.21.2026 2:18 PM

When Is a Park Fee Unconstitutional?

Christian Britschgi | 7.21.2026 1:00 PM

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case of Alaska Pilot Whose $95,000 Plane Was Seized Over a 6-Pack of Beer

C.J. Ciaramella | 7.21.2026 12:20 PM

Trump's New 50% Tariff on Canadian Goods Is Actually an Admission That Trade Wars Don't Work

Eric Boehm | 7.21.2026 12:05 PM

The 2026 World Cup Is Over. Here's How To Make It Even Better Next Time.

Jason Russell | 7.21.2026 11:30 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Reason's July 4 Special!

For America's 250th, Get 2 Years of Reason for $17.76

Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.

Subscribe to Reason