# Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 23, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029 "2013-12-23T19:32:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/181 "2013-12-28T21:23:45Z")
As loathe as I am to turn aside a realistic assessment of my towering brilliance, the reason **Gigo** knows so much more about this stuff than I do is that he has gone to the trouble to do so. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/182 "2013-12-28T21:26:26Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Its a trap! [wolfish grin] AGW is still doublespeak … “human caused global warming” is always a better way to say it. ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/183 "2013-12-28T21:27:17Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > That’s why I’m laughing about this … global warming and sea level rise is a well documented **fact** … it’s been happening for the past 20,000 years and it will continue for the next 20,000 years. If there was a real threat, you’d think our kind would already be wiped out. > > The Canadian Arctic and Siberia will become unimaginably productive agricultural lands … food to feed 20 billion people alone … ending human starvation, poverty will only be taught in history classes, prosperity for all. [sigh] We should be belching carbon dioxide into the air as fast as we can. > > A billion bucks in the OP … the FED has already lost that much, **just today**. Chump change ain’t gonna stop Noah’s Flood, move inland folks. Canada and Siberia are unlikely to feed 20 billion, or anywhere near that figure, for at least two reasons: crops grown today are adapted to certain day/night hours. (I could never get good sweet corn to grow in Hawaii) and will have to be GM’ed to grow at high latitudes, with days up to 24 hours long. Also: the sunlight falling on high latitudes is at an extremely oblique angles, and may not be of the proper angle or frequency for the crops grown now. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/184 "2013-12-28T21:27:35Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Anthropomorphic > > Look it up yourself: > ([Anthropomorphism - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism)) That is not what scientists that look at the issue refer to. You are pointing at a definition that only deniers would look at. The term is Anthropogenic. > [@](#): > > : of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature \ > **[anthropogenic](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/anthropogenic)** > > Definition, Synonyms, Translations of anthropogenic by The Free Dictionary > **[Definition of ANTHROPOGENIC](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropogenic)** > > of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature… See the full definition > [@watchwolf49](#): > > GIGObuster … did you watch how **elucidator** handled himself … he tore my ideas a new asshole without claiming he knew something he didn’t. Now I can respect such a man, someone who stays within his own competence. Maybe we could practice … I’ll assert that “Watts per square meter” is a measurement of energy transfer per second, do you agree? First you do need to learn that your “intelligent-anti-jerk-anti-ignorant” radar is broken. Remember to follow the “\*\*Bricker \*\*standard”, if you do not acknowledge the problems of the ones you are following after a few posts you are in bed with the ones posting flawed reports. Or in the case of FX, (and looking at the subject, the case of the think thanks and politicians pushing idiotic ideas) you need to go to the other threads and recognize that I’m not acting here in a vacuum, you are in favor of jerks with stupid ideas regarding this subject. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/185 "2013-12-28T21:35:07Z")
> **[This graph shows why solar power will take over the world](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/12/23/1264955/-This-graph-shows-why-solar-power-will-take-over-the-world)** > > \*More than 100x cheaper in 35 years!\* > > The graph shows the price per watt, starting in 1977 at over $76/watt all the way down to $0.74/watt in 2013. While already ... A bit of interesting and positive knews from our good friends at _Daily Kos_: reporting a hundred fold drop in the price of solar powered electricity. On the downside, there is yet no resolution to the question of what to do once we have drained the source of solar energy…Bummer, man. Brown barrell. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/186 "2013-12-28T21:47:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/23/1264955/-This-graph-shows-why-solar-power-will-take-over-the-world?detail=hide](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/23/1264955/-This-graph-shows-why-solar-power-will-take-over-the-world?detail=hide) > > A bit of interesting and positive knews from our good friends at _Daily Kos_: reporting a hundred fold drop in the price of solar powered electricity. > > On the downside, there is yet no resolution to the question of what to do once we have drained the source of solar energy…Bummer, man. Brown barrell. Never fear, the merchants of doubt are on the case… to prevent or slow down that progress :rolleyes: > **[ALEC calls for penalties on 'freerider' homeowners in assault on clean energy](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energy)** > > • Documents reveal conservative group's anti-green agenda• Strategy to charge people who install their own solar panels• Environmentalists accuse Alec of protecting utility firms' profits > [@](#): > > ALEC calls for penalties on ‘freerider’ homeowners in assault on clean energy > • Documents reveal conservative group’s anti-green agenda > • Strategy to charge people who install their own solar panels > • Environmentalists accuse Alec of protecting utility firms’ profits ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/187 "2013-12-28T21:47:21Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > “human caused global warming” Does “human caused global warming” include warming which results from changes in land use? Does “human caused global warming” include modest warming resulting from CO2 emissions which is not necessarily amplified? If you interpret the phrase “human caused global warming” literally, it includes both of these things. I believe in “human caused global warming” if that phrase is interpreted literally. And yet I have been labeled a “denier.” So the warmists presumably mean something else when they refer to “global warming.” And yet they refuse to define what exactly it means to them. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/188 "2013-12-28T21:54:23Z")
Ah, the brazil nut just pretends that we forget that he denies the basics of feedbacks like water vapor, he pretends that just accepting the warming from CO2 alone makes him different from the other deniers out there. For many of them, the ones that are still being taken with some seriousness that is, the warming caused by humans is not a concern because it will be only increase the temperature by 1 or 2 degrees, just what many think thanks and “serious” contrarians are falling back when confronted by repeating already debunked points. Unfortunately it is not just models what tells the scientists that the water vapor feedback with the CO2 will increase temperatures more than the low temperatures the current lukewarmers report. [http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor\_warming.html](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html) > [@](#): > > Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth’s surface temperature. That’s because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth’s troposphere – the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth’s surface to about 10 miles in altitude. > > AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback. > > “This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide." > > Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet). > > “That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy,” Dessler said. “We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone.” > > Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor’s impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth’s leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/189 "2013-12-28T21:58:50Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I believe in “human caused global warming” if that phrase is interpreted literally. And yet I have been labeled a “denier.” That’s because you want to talk about science and define what shit means, rather than repeat scary stories and bitch about how rich people are destroying the world and how “they” are stopping the good people from preventing this from happening. You know, what this topic is supposed to be about. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/190 "2013-12-28T22:00:21Z")
Watchwolf Standard … if you say it’s a problem, but can’t explain why and insist it is true, then you are a … religious zealot. It’s appalling to not even want to know. From the top: What “special property” of carbon dioxide causes it to be the sole arbiter of global climate … in your own words, please? If you say you don’t know, I promise not to bite you … or yell at you … or any other nasty thing … okay? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/191 "2013-12-28T22:01:51Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That’s because you want to talk about science and define what shit means, rather than repeat scary stories and bitch about how rich people are destroying the world and how “they” are stopping the good people from preventing this from happening. > > You know, what this topic is supposed to be about. As noticed, (on the water vapor feedback alone) the breakdown of your “intelligent-anti-jerk-anti-ignorant” radar is even more damaged that the one from **watchwolf49**. There is lots of willful ignorance moves and behavior that you ignore about brazil84, he deserves the infamy that he has in the SDMB ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/192 "2013-12-28T22:15:04Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > If you interpret the phrase “human caused global warming” literally, it includes both of these things. All human activity, including many more things than two (like cow farts). Using hydroelectricity to make ethanol out of sugar cane probably wouldn’t be included though. But all of Holland screaming in delight come July 13th would be [hehe] that’s a lot of hot air. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/193 "2013-12-28T22:31:17Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Watchwolf Standard … if you say it’s a problem, but can’t explain why and insist it is true, then you are a … religious zealot. It’s appalling to not even want to know. > > From the top: What “special property” of carbon dioxide causes it to be the sole arbiter of global climate … in your own words, please? If you say you don’t know, I promise not to bite you … or yell at you … or any other nasty thing … okay? It is not the sole arbiter, that should be the first clue about how far you are from the truth. What scientists report is that thanks to human activity it is turning to be the one currently driving the increase in warming. I have seen your maneuver before, pretend that the opinion of a poster in a message board is the best way to measure how religious this issue is, in reality I use logic. I look at how experts report on the issue. Again, if you are correct I hope you never get sick of the stomach and declare that the ones telling you to follow the advise of a doctor are following religion and that you should follow the herbalist. (It should not be surprising to learn that many herbalists when confronted to provide evidence of herbs being more effective than medicines resort also to claim that pharmaceutical companies are the enemy and they are telling you to use medicines based on religious ideas) Having said that, what I know is that in laboratory settings and in atmospheric tests with satellite and surface measurements scientists observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy. [https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper\_100737.htm](https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm) > [@](#): > > The earth’s climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. > > … > > The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. My meta point stands from way back then, after reading what Evans and others found it is clear that you insist that I should reinvent the wheel and explain again what people with better grammar that I have can and do. Many years of this shows me that the reason is just to find nits on what a poster comes with, the reports of the scientists then are happily ignored. So, I do know because I do check what scientists report, not what fossil fuel, related companies and extreme ideologues are telling you thanks to the money they offer to think thanks like the Heartland Institute. > **[RealClimate: What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/)** > > RealClimate: Over the past days, many of us have received invitations to a conference called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York. At first sight this may look like a scientific conference - especially to those who are... > [@](#): > > A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting: > > ``` > Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states: > > ``` > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > “The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.” > > > > ``` > > ``` > So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The “official” conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though – evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.) > > ``` > > - At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking – if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper. > > - At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises “input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics”. Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists’ links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like [sourcewatch.org](http://sourcewatch.org) or [exxonsecrets.org](http://exxonsecrets.org).) ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/194 "2013-12-28T22:31:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As noticed, (on the water vapor feedback alone) the breakdown of your “intelligent-anti-jerk-anti-ignorant” radar is even more damaged that the one from **watchwolf49**. There is lots of willful ignorance moves and behavior that you ignore about brazil84, he deserves the infamy that he has in the SDMB I’m intimately familiar with water’s feedback mechanism, so be warned, you’ve entered the realm of Fluid Mechanics. That was indeed the pair of ace’s up my sleeve, as it were, Water is thrice the greenhouse gas CO2 is and it’s 100 times more abundant in the atmosphere … plus, it fucking condenses. Oh right, it’s 40% by mass of the products of combustion. Take your carbon dioxide and shove it where the sun don’t shine, PURE WATER is the pollution here (or actually the energy it releases haha). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/195 "2013-12-28T22:42:00Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’m intimately familiar with water’s feedback mechanism, so be warned, you’ve entered the realm of Fluid Mechanics. That was indeed the pair of ace’s up my sleeve, as it were, Water is thrice the greenhouse gas CO2 is and it’s 100 times more abundant in the atmosphere … plus, it fucking condenses. Oh right, it’s 40% by mass of the products of combustion. > > Take your carbon dioxide and shove it where the sun don’t shine, PURE WATER is the pollution here (or actually the energy it releases haha). Not impressed, at all, if you have such dizzying 🙂 intellect you should then publish and face your peers. As mentioned before, scientists reviewing the data and experiments from MIT and others agree that the feedback can not be ignored. [http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm](http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm) Of course the point can be made here that if you are correct you are really very irresponsible, you have wasted a lot of time pushing (unrelated to the water vapor) nonsense on a message board when you should had publish and convinced the scientists of their folly. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/196 "2013-12-28T22:53:42Z")
My mistake on that link, I was preparing how the IPCC reports mentioned what was suspected then, and how later groups like the ones from Texas A&M reported experimental data that shows that it is unlikely that water vapor will be a negative feedback. So, if you continue to be irresponsible at least take your “research” to NASA to show it to them so they will then dismiss Andrew Dessler and discredit him and others at Texas A&M. Not holding my breath for that one. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/197 "2013-12-28T23:11:01Z")
Thank you, stupid motherfucker, I really appreciate you yarding up these scientific papers confirming what I say. Oh, you didn’t notice that, that’s because you’re a stupid motherfucker. NASA? I guess I’m going to find out why stupid motherfuckers don’t think NOAA is the right place to go. … useless ape … ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/198 "2013-12-28T23:21:16Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Thank you, stupid motherfucker, I really appreciate you yarding up these scientific papers confirming what I say. Oh, you didn’t notice that, that’s because you’re a stupid motherfucker. NASA? I guess I’m going to find out why stupid motherfuckers don’t think NOAA is the right place to go. > > … useless ape … Of course then it shows that you continue to tell others to do the opposite of that the papers imply we should do. Indeed, Water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour has also a positive feedback and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. What brazil and you will never demonstrate in a peer review setting is that that positive feedback is not there. Well then, tell it to NOAA, but not holding my breath for you doing anything about it too. See, I’m easy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/199 "2013-12-28T23:43:41Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > NASA? I guess I’m going to find out why stupid motherfuckers don’t think NOAA is the right place to go. What on Earth are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2013, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/200 "2013-12-28T23:44:41Z")
BTW \*\*watchwolf49 \*\*I did notice that the jerkitude of FX caught you too in the other thread where I decided not to go again, you see FX did post in the other thread a quote from me to give the impression that I was posting again in that thread, after I told all over here the reasons why I was not posting anymore in the “I’m sick of this global warming”. A clear effort from FX to claim that I do not pay attention or stalking. If you continue to think FX is the “beesnees”, your intelli-anti-jerk-anti-ignorant radar is broken beyond repair. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029.md?page=11)