PA-Gov: Environmental SuperPAC to Target Tom Corbett

Tom-Corbett-upsetWe’re entering the heart of a midterm election year and Pennsylvania’s Governor’s race will not be immune from the avalanche of cash that is sure to flow.

This fact became even more evident today with the announcement that liberal billionaire Tom Steyer is pledging that his SuperPAC, NextGen Climate Action, will spend $100 million this year and that Gov. Corbett is own of their targets.

NextGen Climate Action is an environmental political action group that advocates for candidates that will address climate change.

“In states where climate change is on the ballot, we’re taking action,” they state on their website.

According to Politico, the group told reporters that their money will be focused on seven races this year. Four will involve defending potentially endangered incumbent Democratic Senators or Democrats running in close races in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan and New Hampshire. The other three concern targeting GOP governors in Florida, Maine and Pennsylvania.

The group first became involved in electoral politics last year when they aided Democrats Ed Markey and Terry McAuliffe who respectively won their races for the Senate in Massachusetts and Governor in Virginia.

NextGen provided Politico with a state-by-state breakdown of their strategy.

“The group will dismiss Gov. Tom Corbett as an extremist on climate change,” they said. “It will target low-income voters affected by pollution in the state and voters in Philadelphia who didn’t vote in 2010.”

Gov. Corbett will be battling former Department of Revenue Secretary Tom Wolf in the general election.

18 Responses

  1. You must not have clicked on my last link which was the IPCC’s official global temperature data falling out of the statistical probability of their models’ accuracy. Any scientist should know that means it’s “back to the drawing board.”

  2. We’re struggling to survive here. Why does President Obama want to raise our gas and electric bills?

  3. Typical of libs like David and Isaac to go all ad hominem when they find out that the data is no longer on their side. The only ones they’re fooling is themselves.

  4. Unsanctioned R-
    1) I can’t read your WSJ article because I don’t have a subscription
    2) It’s not a news article, but rather an opinion piece. The counter-studies it cites are the ones that have been debunked. Most notably, the “Petition Project”, which had barely any climatologists among its signers
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

    3) Your “Speigel” article is from Jan 2013. Here is a current Speigel article:
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

    4) While the 97% figure doesn’t represent the number of scientists who think the reason behind the changes is man-made (or rather completely man-made), it DOES represent the percentage who recognize that global warming is indeed occurring. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas (methane is as well). So, your attack on the 97% figure is misleading. There is a legitimate debate, study and analysis as to how much CO2 is having an effect, and what levels of CO2 reduction are needed. That’s how science works. They identify what is happening through measurements and trends, then they analyze the causes.

    5) I’m not relying upon IPCC data from 2000. There are current and consistent reports/measurements that show that global warming is occurring. Maybe, you aren’t noticing the warming because your head is stuck in the sand (or some other hole)?

  5. What hypocrites you two are.
    You’ve got to be the two most misinformed people on today’s science. Stop basing your opinions on the IPCC data from 2000.
    Europeans have woken up. Their press knows it. Their governments have certainly taken notice. You guys are the last people to get a clue and are a laughing stock who pedal in opinion, not science.
    Up is down in your world.
    Here’s yesterday’s WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136?mod=trending_now_2

  6. Isaac L-
    I realize Unsanctioned R is hopeless, but I’m putting out information so that others aren’t taking in by his misinformation and so they learn how to counter his hollow arguments.

    It’s like how Galileo used “Simplicio” to demonstrated the weak/failed arguments of the geocentric theory. Unlike Galileo, I don’t have to write the weak arguments myself, as Unsanctioned R and his cohorts do all that lifting for me. 🙂

  7. David – Unsanctioned R is one of those anti-science partisan hacks who is hypocritically calling out perceived hypocrisy when he’s already changed his story and doesn’t seem to have any credible sources for his claims. Not sure this one’s worth your time – while it’s frustrating that people run around spouting their misinformation, engaging them sometimes makes it worse than dismissing them as the sad, misinformed individuals they are.

  8. “The warming has been increasing”
    Really? Now YOU disagree with the IPCC and are cherry-picking data.
    Careful, they may come after you too.
    Better start bleating like the rest of the sheep attached to the government teat.

    Tell me David, why should we jack up energy prices on the little people when even the “97%” say our reduction won’t do anything?

  9. Unsanctioned R 
    The warming has been increasing. The CO 2 levels finally crossed the 400ppm level. The newspaper article was just one of many examples to counteract your claim that scientists haven’t been able to model climate change. Your article was a blog rant, with no supporting facts. It was however a giant piece of conspiracy theory that the U.S.government wanted an excuse to control industry and invented CO2 reductionas a solution seeking a problem. But, that’s ridiculous, as independent scientists and NASA satellite readings have ask confirmed the results

  10. David, regarding your one article, we now know that CO2 is not the major factor affecting climate change or else we would have experienced even greater warming since 2000 when global concentrations ramped up (see China & India).

    Regarding the wiki, 100% of scientists agree that wrecking the world economy by stabilizing at year 2000 CO2 emissions would have ZERO affect on the “97%ers” dire predictions for 2100.

    For something more contemporary, try this: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/the-bullying-of-bengtsson-and-the-coming-climate-disruption-hypocalypse/

  11. What the Governor’s Race truly is about and it’s not climate Change: The core issue is whether we taxpayers will have an administration that wants to move the Keystone State forward. Pennsylvania cannot afford 4 more years of blatant political necrophilia. We cannot afford 4 years of rule by acting Governor Brabender, an un-elected consultant from the horse country of Virginia. Does anyone in the Keystone state really believe that the Bakers, the Nutts, or Charley Zogby really care about the long-term interests of Pennsylvania or their next highly paid gigs? Tom Corbett is a weak leader and an even weaker administrator. Brabender needs to return to Virginia horse country, the Bakers can start raising funds for the Corbett Library to be housed in Loundon County, Virginia and Charly Zogby will finally get off the public payroll and find a more lucrative paying job pimping for the Cyber Charter School Corporate Welfare Queens. It is time for Tom Corbett to take Jeff Romoff’s UPMC jet with the Bakers, Sue Corbett and grandbaby Liam to retire in South Carolina. I look forward to that day and even I will applaud Jeff Romoff as a humanitarian, when that UPMC jet takes for Hilton Head.

  12. Unsanctioned R-

    Their models aren’t flawed.
    BTW, here’s example of scientist who had it right 40 years ago (and the article mentions later scientists with accurate predictions as well)
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972

    Read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming for an overview.

    The US military (even under Bush) determined that global warming was not only real. It poses a significant military problem as the associated changes would lead to droughts, floods, crop shortages (ie food shortages), thus leading to instabilities and wars.

  13. David, Join the rest of the Western Hemisphere. The “scientists” you want to believe don’t even know why their models are fatally flawed and have incorrectly predicted the past 15 years despite record CO2. You obviously haven’t a clue about the data. It’s hype, certainly not reality that cons simple minds into conformity.

  14. Unsanctioned R-

    You are a low-information voter who has ignored/avoided the real science and facts about climate change.

    Wake up and smell the data.

  15. They’re targeting low-income voters because they think they’re the only ones still buying the climate change B.S.

Comments are closed.

Email:
  • Do You Agree With the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade?


    • No. (50%)
    • Yes. (47%)
    • Not Sure (3%)

    Total Voters: 109

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen