“[Tom] Steyer has proven himself a master at working the system, first to amass a fossil-fuel fortune, and now to bask in the applause of the environmental left even as he feeds at the green energy subsidy trough…. Thus has he descended into a display of crass dishonesty shameless even by Beltway standards.”
– B. Zycher, “He’s Explaining, and He’s Losing.” The Hill, July 18, 2014.
It’s good to have Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D economist and longtime energy scholar, at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
He continues the intellectual tradition carried on, most recently, by Stephen Hayward and Kenneth Green. And this tradition goes back to when AEI led the fight against oil and gas price and allocation controls in the dark 1970s. Twenty-five studies in their National Energy Project (1974–76) and Studies in Energy Policy (1976–85) helped make up for Resources for the Future taking a Malthusian left turn. 
In The Hill, Zycher wrote a devastating criticism of Tom Steyer’s fossil-fuel past and anti-fossil-fuel present. Zycher knows his climate science, energy, and climate policy, and his subject gets a multi-disciplinary bashing.
Steyer publically personally challenged Charles and David Koch to a debate on the climate science. Let the brothers run their business, Mr. Steyer. Ask Benjamin instead, and odds are you will have your debate.
Here are two parts of Zycher’s “He’s Explaining, and He’s Losing.” I have numbered the science points; otherwise it is a direct quote (and thus indented).
Nine Science Facts
Temperature Effect of Full Out
If we apply the climate model developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, used by both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Obama administration “carbon” policies would reduce global temperatures in the year 2100 by about two one-hundredths of a degree under the highest IPCC climate sensitivity assumption.
A 40 percent U.S. emissions reduction — more than double the Obama goal — would reduce temperatures by six one-hundredths of a degree. If that 40 percent reduction were to be imposed by the entire industrialized world, including China, the predicted effect is about half a degree.
The ball is definitely in Steyer’s court. He is invited to peek out of his foxhole and engage Mr. Zycher on the physical science, the economics, and the politics of climate change (aka global warming).
 See Bradley, Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy, (Salem, MA: M & M Scrivener Press, 2009), pp. 266–68.