# At what point will the Global Warming Debate be resolved?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 20, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473 "2013-03-20T17:52:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)
#### Post date: [March 22, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/21 "2013-03-22T15:01:25Z")
> [@](#):
>
> It’s not a good thing, but now it’s too late to stop it.
This is the most reprehensible idiocy, suggesting to ignore the problem not _in spite_ that it’s serious, but _because_ it’s serious. :smack:
No one knows for sure when the “tipping point” will be reached; moreover _there may be multiple tipping points_: Recovery might be possible from major deforestation, but not if there’s significant losses to the Northern ice caps.
(BTW, as I’ve speculated before, I think cooling agents, e.g. sulphates, will be deployed in the atmosphere mid-century; ocean acidity will be a bigger long-term concern.)
---
### Author:  [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)
#### Post date: [March 22, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/22 "2013-03-22T17:28:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> I agree with most of the post, but there is a nit:]
No argument. My point was merely that all too often, the events that change the mainstream opinion aren’t actually good examples.
Why did the public want to invade Iraq after 9/11?
Sorry, wrong thread! That was for rhetoric purposes only.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [March 22, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/23 "2013-03-22T17:36:28Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#):
>
> It won’t be. The arguments will just morph into different variations. In fact, that has already started.
[Hierarchy of Global Warming Denial:](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming#Hierarchy_of_global_warming_denial)
> [@](#):
>
> Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below - in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken.
>
> 1. Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring[24] (taken from the Conservapedia homepage). This probably goes beyond denialism and verges on the psychotic.
>
> 2. Simply deny global warming is happening[25] - and maintain that no action is necessary - an increasingly uncommon position.
>
> 3. Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity - so we don’t have to do anything.
>
> 4. Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but mostly it’s caused by solar activity - so we don’t have to do anything.
>
> 5. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, but it may be a _good thing_[26] - so we don’t have to do anything.
>
> 6. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China isn’t doing anything - so we don’t have to do anything.
>
> 7. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China does something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a shitload of dough - so we don’t have to do anything.
>
> 8. (There is an hypothesized eighth step, “Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments should have done something, but it’s too late now!”)
>
> When debating global warming, it is wise to establish beforehand which of the opinions each debater holds, referring to the list above - otherwise you can waste a lot of time proving the wrong point. It may be similar to arguing with someone about the New World Order as you need to find out exactly where they stand before engaging with them.
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 22, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/24 "2013-03-22T17:38:16Z")
When in ten more years the disastrous consquences of GW have not happened.
---
### Author:  [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)
#### Post date: [March 22, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/25 "2013-03-22T18:12:18Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> When in ten more years the disastrous consquences of GW have not happened.
Since the disasters are predicted more than 10 years from now, wouldn’t that be a bit premature?
In any case, I like this plan. Let’s wait until the disasters happens, and then wish we’d done something. Good plan! Great risk management. And thanks for the disasters.
---
### Author:  [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)
#### Post date: [March 22, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/26 "2013-03-22T18:28:52Z")
Debates aren’t won or lost in any meaningful sense, they just happen.
In this case, there was a debate between people on the side of global climate change, and morons who believed in some kind of steady climate state despite absolutely zero evidence of such a thing. But that wasn’t a debate between reasoning sides.
The only real debate has been about how the climate will change. It obviously will, and does, because we have a history of global climate change. And anyone who doubts that humans affect that change are equally foolish because we’ve seen the effects on the environment in so many ways already.
But what that change will be is a real debate because it’s all forecasting, based on measuring with limited tools.
IMHO, climatologists who have legitimate arguments on either side of this issue should stop using their cherry picked data to make forecasts and do a better job explaining the science behind their forecasting. I’ve seen tons of datapoints that tell me nothing, but very little thoughtful explanation of what datapoints would be useful, and how they would be arrived at. Now I’m not looking very hard, but when it comes to meaningful results here, public opinion must be consolidated, and the public has little to work with. I think the vast majority of people know that the climate is changing, but they don’t know if there is a reasonable way to predict what the change will be, how fast it will happen, what the effects will be, or if anything can be done about it. And, IMHO, I don’t think science has figured those things out either. A preponderous of scientific opinions that the earth will get warmer with disastrous results someday, and maybe we can invent a technology to prevent that isn’t the kind of useful information that will get people to change their minds or act.
---
### Author:  [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)
#### Post date: [March 22, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/27 "2013-03-22T18:40:39Z")
There are two (general) aspects that are perpetuating so-called “debate.” First, there is tremendous money in obfuscation. Short of a technological revolution in non-carbon energy sources, the funding of non-science will continue to make rational discussion impossible.
Second, personal pride perpetuates ignorance. People’s political alignment and past statements by and large calcify their stance and they refuse to see or irrationally refute evidence to the contrary. Hahahah… yes, good one there, you’re right that this can technically be said of both sides. Whatever. The point remains that the overwhelming evidence supporting the fundamentals–evidence that is based on science–cannot stand up to some people’s inherent desire to bury their heads and hold their view in the face of losing an argument.
Though some of the second cohort change their mind on their own, the only hope is ensuring solid science education in lower and middle schools (a solid grasp of 10th grade Earth Science is all that’s really necessary to understand and follow the debate; the lack of such basic education is a fundamental weakness of our country). It is up to time to replace emotional-based opinions with science-based decision making.
So without an amazing breakthrough and without mass scientific awakening, I daresay the “debate” will continue on for at least a generation.
On the pragmatic side, I think I either started a Pit thread or wanted to on my own caving. A year or so ago (or longer?) I began shifting my policy work’s emphasis from mitigation to adaptation. I no longer believe the world will pull its head out of its ass long enough to do anything more than temper new emissions by some token amount (again, barring an unforeseen event or advance). Hence my advocating that resources be directed more to adaptation.
---
### Author:  [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)
#### Post date: [March 22, 2013, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/28 "2013-03-22T20:19:59Z")
I think it’s simpler still. It’ll be resolved when the economic cost to the deniers is higher (for whatever reason) for denying it than for fixing it. The “debate” has long since boiled down to science on one side and money on the other. When the effects become bad enough that it costs more to ignore it, the money will switch sides and the obfuscation will stop.
Until then, money is far more powerful than science for swaying public opinion, which has allowed it to dominate even from a postion of factual weakness.
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 22, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/29 "2013-03-22T22:58:17Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#):
>
> I think it’s simpler still. It’ll be resolved when the economic cost to the deniers is higher (for whatever reason) for denying it than for fixing it. The “debate” has long since boiled down to science on one side and money on the other. When the effects become bad enough that it costs more to ignore it, the money will switch sides and the obfuscation will stop.
>
> Until then, money is far more powerful than science for swaying public opinion, which has allowed it to dominate even from a postion of factual weakness.
Could you point to a nice, unbiased source that compares total funding of pro and against?
---
### Author:  [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)
#### Post date: [March 22, 2013, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/30 "2013-03-22T23:53:23Z")
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.
---
### Author:  [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/31 "2013-03-23T13:54:00Z")
oops never mind
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/32 "2013-03-23T14:25:28Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#):
>
> You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.
So that means no quote and only feel-good phrases?
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/33 "2013-03-23T16:59:42Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Could you point to a nice, unbiased source that compares total funding of pro and against?
How to compare them? Does grant money for scientific research go into the “pro” column? It’s mostly propaganda money in the “against” column. See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Private_sector):
> [@](#):
>
> **Private sector**
>
> See also: Business action on climate change
>
> In one of the first attempts by industry to influence public opinion on climate change,[36] a 1998 proposal (later posted online by Greenpeace)[37] was circulated among U.S. opponents of a treaty to fight global warming, including both industry and conservative political groups, in an effort to influence public perception of the extent of the problem. Written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute and then leaked to The New York Times, the memo described, in the article’s words, a plan “to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry’s views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases.” Cushman quoted the document as proposing a US$ 5,000,000 multi-point strategy to “maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences,” with a goal of “raising questions about and undercutting the ‘prevailing scientific wisdom.’”[38]
>
> The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that, The Guardian said, “attack the UN’s panel as ‘resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work’ and ask for essays that ‘thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs’.” More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.[39] Despite her initial conviction that with “the overwhelming science out there, the deniers’ days were numbered,” Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI’s offer, “I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn’t giving up.”[9]
>
> The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that “misinformed the public about climate change,” 39 of which “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence”.[5][40] In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to “politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate.”[41]
>
> ExxonMobil has denied the accusations that it has been trying to mislead the public about global warming. A spokesman, Gantt Walton, said that ExxonMobil’s funding of research does not mean that it acts to influence the research, and that ExxonMobil supports taking action to curb the output of greenhouse gasses. Gantt said, “The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” [42]
>
> In 2013, The Guardian revealed that two trusts, the ‘DonorsTrust’ and the ‘Donors Capital Fund’, operating out of a house in the suburbs of Washington DC, have bankrolled 102 think tanks and activist groups to the tune of $118m between 2002 and 2010. The conservative donors to these trusts are said to represent a wide range of opinion on the American right who have found common ground in opposing cuts to greenhouse gas emissions. They ensure their anonymity by funnelling the funds through the trusts, and the money flowed into “Washington thinktanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore,” the report said. The stream of cash was used to fund a conservative backlash against Barack Obama’s environmental initiatives and to wreck any chance of Congress taking action on climate change. The money funded a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a ‘wedge issue’ that benefits the hardcore right. Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who has researched other networks of ultra-right donors, said, “Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg.”[25]
>
> **Public sector**
>
> In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that “you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue” and “challenge the science” by “recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view.”[9] In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes “back [in] '97, '98, the science was uncertain”, but he now agrees with the scientific consensus.[43]
>
> In 2005, the New York Times reported that Philip Cooney, former lobbyist and “climate team leader” at the American Petroleum Institute and President George W. Bush’s chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality, had “repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.”[44] Sharon Begley reported in Newsweek that Cooney “edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as ‘lack of understanding’ and ‘considerable uncertainty.’” Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying “You are doing a great job.”[9] Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke,[45] but a few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil.[46]
>
> **Schools**
>
> According to documents leaked in February, 2012, The Heartland Institute is developing a curriculum for use in schools which frames climate change as a scientific controversy.[47][48][49]
See also [here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network):
> [@](#):
>
> Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
>
> The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising “wedge issue” for hardcore conservatives.
>
> The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/34 "2013-03-23T23:47:23Z")
BTW the Frontline documentary also touched on the funding.
> **[Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/climate-of-doubt/transcript/?)**
>
> FRONTLINE explores the massive shift in public opinion on climate change.
> [@](#):
>
> JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [voice-over] But for now, back at the Heartland conference in Chicago, they feel they’re winning. Their campaign of alternative scientific studies, opinion pieces, books and advertising, charts and presentations has been building for years.
>
> It’s been money well spent. In the early days, much of it came from fossil fuel interests. Heartland presenter Willie Soon has received money from ExxonMobil. Chris Horner was formerly a registered lobbyist for oil, gas and chemical companies. Climatologist Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute has estimated 40 percent of his funding has come from fossil fuel interests. Exxon at the time was one of Heartland’s most generous donors.
>
> STEVE COLL, Author, Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power: There were a lot of corporations, including oil companies, that objected to the Kyoto accords in 1997, but most of them lobbied against the treaty on economic and fairness grounds. But Exxon did something that I think was fairly radical, which was that they chose to go after the science.
>
> \*COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE COMMERCIAL: And as for carbon dioxide, it isn’t smog or smoke, it’s what we breathe out and plants breathe in.
>
> JOHN HOCKENBERRY: Borrowing tactics used on behalf of the tobacco industry, advocacy groups were enlisted to confuse the issue and shut down new federal regulations.
As usual, some do think that ignoring what cites already posted say would make them look as having a good argument.
---
### Author:  [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2013, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/35 "2013-03-24T22:01:07Z")
OK, hypothetically-what would happen if global temperatures begin to decline? And not for a few years- suppose a trend begins, and continues for decades? Would this be attributed to “climate change”-or would the fundamental hypothesis be questioned?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 25, 2013, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/36 "2013-03-25T00:38:58Z")
> [@ralph124c](#):
>
> OK, hypothetically-what would happen if global temperatures begin to decline? And not for a few years- suppose a trend begins, and continues for decades? Would this be attributed to “climate change”-or would the fundamental hypothesis be questioned?
As the discussions on Geo-engineering show, a wished for temperature decline ignores the other evil twin of AGW: ocean acidification, reducing emissions is important not just for global temperature reasons. As reported before, the trend is not going down, and even a latest paper reports how unnatural the current warming trend looks.
The old chestnut of a point here from skeptics is to report that of course climate has changed in the past, but that line of discussion is made usually forgetting that the reasons for the current change are not what the scientists report that caused climate changed in the past.
> **[Global Temperature Change — the Big Picture](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/#more-6456)**
>
> There’s a new reconstruction of past temperature covering the last 11,300 years by Marcott et al. (2013, A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, Science…
The natural trend for the last 8000 years was for a very gradual cooling, the warming happening right now can not be explained with natural forces detected now.
Now, if a cooling trend happens for decades of course there will be a need to figure out what natural forces are causing that downward trend, but the problem is that the possible mechanisms reported by skeptics for this to take place have failed many times to keep it going down. The best the natural forces have been doing is to make an upward going escalator.
> **[The Escalator](https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47)**
>
> Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science...
> **[What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm)**
>
> Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past...
> [@](#):
>
> Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2.
> [@](#):
>
> What can we conclude from this? We have a number of independent studies covering a range of periods, studying different aspects of climate and employing various methods of analysis. They all yield a broadly consistent range of climate sensitivity with a most likely value of 3°C for a doubling of CO2.
>
> The combined evidence indicates that the net feedback to radiative forcing is significantly positive. There is no credible line of evidence that yields very high or very low climate sensitivity as a best estimate.
>
> CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations. The climate response to this heat build-up is determined by climate sensitivity.
>
> Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they’re in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [March 25, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/37 "2013-03-25T03:19:30Z")
> [@ralph124c](#):
>
> OK, hypothetically-what would happen if global temperatures begin to decline? And not for a few years- suppose a trend begins, and continues for decades? Would this be attributed to “climate change”-or would the fundamental hypothesis be questioned?
Real science is honest: everyone would say, “Okay, we didn’t expect that…” And then they’d do all that is humanly possible to find out why.
Science discards hypotheses all the time. We’ve lived through some of the more profound examples of this. The discovery that ulcers were caused by a virus: this went from total rejection to total acceptance in about ten years. Same with plate tectonics: everybody laughed…at first.
So, yeah, sure: if the curves suddenly reversed, the science would have to be re-figured. There are still a few people who suggest that anti-matter may have anti-gravity properties; when somebody finally accumulates a couple grams of anti-matter, and it floats to the top of its containment field (one hopes non-catastrophically!) all the world’s Einsteinians will have to say, “Doggone! We were wrong!”
(“We wuz robbed!”)
In a sense, your question seems to presume dishonesty on the part of the world’s scientists. “If they were shown wrong, would they admit it?” Hell yes, they would. That’s what science is!
---
### Author:  [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)
#### Post date: [March 25, 2013, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/38 "2013-03-25T13:26:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> In a sense, your question seems to presume dishonesty on the part of the world’s scientists. “If they were shown wrong, would they admit it?” Hell yes, they would. That’s what science is!
That’s what bugs me most about the skeptics’ insistence that the pro-AGW side is motivated by money. If a climatologist could prove that humans aren’t causing climate change, he/she would instantly be one of the most well-known scientists in the world and would be able to retire to their own private island.
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2013, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/39 "2013-03-26T01:32:28Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> How to compare them? Does grant money for scientific research go into the “pro” column? It’s mostly propaganda money in the “against” column. See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Private_sector):
>
> See also [here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network):
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> BTW the Frontline documentary also touched on the funding.
>
> [Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/transcript-31/)
> As usual, some do think that ignoring what cites already posted say would make them look as having a good argument.
So, a quick tally makes it 250 million dollars for about 100 institution in ten years for a grand total of 250,000 per institution per year, not exactly the Manhattan Project.
“An inconvenient Truth” made 50 mill.
NOAA’s budget is over 5 billion a year.
C’mon
> [@Lightnin](#):
>
> That’s what bugs me most about the skeptics’ insistence that the pro-AGW side is motivated by money. If a climatologist could prove that humans aren’t causing climate change, he/she would instantly be one of the most well-known scientists in the world and would be able to retire to their own private island.
What bugs ME is the warmists insistence that septics can only be motivated by oil money, evil , or ignorance.
---
### Author:  [@Greg\_Charles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greg_Charles)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2013, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/40 "2013-03-26T01:41:37Z")
Septics, heh. What we “warmists” see is world temperatures by year plotted on a graph showing a consistent upward trend, and what we hear is, “No it’s not there.” “The data has been faked.” “1998 was the peak and it’s been cooler since then.” All these observations are based on ignorance, willful or genuine, so what do you suggest that we insist is motivating you?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473.md?page=3)