# 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:** 11
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/201 "2013-12-29T00:32:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Indeed, Water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas. I think we should cut down on water emissions. If we don’t, we’ll probably have a skyrocketing water vapor content in the atmosphere (especially in the bone dry state of Florida, check out its average relative humidity to see how much more potential for extra water vapor there is.) Plus, once you release water vapor into the air, you can’t scrub it from the air like you can carbon dioxide. It’s gonna stay up there for decades. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/202 "2013-12-29T00:36:55Z")
> [@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? First of all, the question is wrong. CO2 is not the sole arbiter of climate. It has been recognized as one of the primary drivers (others including for example the sun) of climactic temperatures. Why? My layman’s understanding would say primarily it’s molecular absorbtion range and relative frequency in nature, plus how feedback loops with water vapor work. But it’s not simple. AGW is rather difficult science, and I think we’d all appreciate it if you spent some time looking it up on your own. ---
**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 29, 2013, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/203 "2013-12-29T00:50:06Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > First of all, the question is wrong. CO2 is not the sole arbiter of climate. It has been recognized as one of the primary drivers (others including for example the sun) of climactic temperatures. Why? My layman’s understanding would say primarily it’s molecular absorbtion range and relative frequency in nature, plus how feedback loops with water vapor work. But it’s not simple. AGW is rather difficult science, and I think we’d all appreciate it if you spent some time looking it up on your own. As you can notice, the idea from contrarians here is to claim that scientists or a poster are dumb for not noticing all that water vapor, the tap dancing is that they claim to follow science because “only they do notice” that, what about the feedback water vapor has with CO2? “water vapor is the most dominant gas, end of story!” ---
**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 29, 2013, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/204 "2013-12-29T01:27:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As you can notice, the idea from contrarians here is to claim that scientists or a poster are dumb for not noticing all that water vapor Well you should let the goddamn genius at the SS blog ride to the rescue! > [@](#): > > If there is a cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour as a greenhouse gas and the temperature stays quite warm. > **[Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works](https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm)** > > \Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to... Problem solved. Because clouds are made of water vapour. If there were no clouds, well, then we would freeze, because that means no water vapour to trap the heat. Goddamn, that blog is fucking genius I tell you. ---
**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 29, 2013, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/205 "2013-12-29T01:55:11Z")
Of course if this was a pseudoscience it would be difficult to find many other sources (many supplied by you too) that support what I say, your reason for disliking Skeptical Science is stupid indeed because they do link to the science, specially in the intermediary or advanced sections. > **[Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works](https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm)** > > \Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to... That has links or it refers to published scientific papers that support what they claim: [http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf](http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf) > [@](#): > > In summary, model fingerprints of the response of atmospheric > moisture to external forcings are identifiable in observations with > high statistical confidence, despite the short length of the SSM/I > record. Single-forcing experiments performed with two different > models (28, 29) suggest that the large increase in Wo > is primarily due to human-caused increases in GHGs (Fig. 5) and not to solar > forcing or the recovery from the Pinatubo eruption. Our analysis of > model control run data illustrates that internally generated vari- > ability is also a highly unlikely explanation for the observed Wo changes. > > The credibility of these conclusions depends on the reliability of > model-based noise estimates. On monthly and interannual time > scales, where SSM/I data are of sufficient length to make such > reliability assessments, the models used here do not systematically > underestimate the amplitude of variability in Wo or the strength > of the correlation between SSTs and Wo. In fact, the simulated > variability of Wo is, on average, slightly larger than observed, both > with and without interannual filtering. > > These findings, together with related work on continental-scale > river runoff (15), zonal mean rainfall (16), and surface specific > humidity (17), suggest that there is an emerging anthropogenic > signal in both the moisture content of earth’s atmosphere and in the > cycling of moisture between atmosphere, land, and ocean. Detec- > tion and attribution studies have now moved beyond ‘‘temperature- > only’’ analyses and show physical consistency between observed and > simulated temperature, moisture, and circulation changes. This > internal consistency underscores the reality of human effects on > climate. [http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.abstract](http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.abstract) > [@](#): > > Abstract > > Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth’s atmosphere. Of course, that does not fit your narrative that the articles are full of fail, but that is ok, the point than is that it shows that you are full of trash. ---
**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 29, 2013, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/206 "2013-12-29T01:59:31Z")
Oh no. GIGOgalloper thinks clouds are made of water vapour. If you doubt him, you deny science. ---
**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 29, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/207 "2013-12-29T02:02:51Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Oh no. GIGOgalloper thinks clouds are made of water vapour. If you doubt him, you deny science. We were discussing waver vapor feedback, you can not help but to continue to creatively molest the quotes of other posters. ---
**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 29, 2013, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/208 "2013-12-29T02:03:18Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > I think we should cut down on water emissions. If we don’t, we’ll probably have a skyrocketing water vapor content in the atmosphere You jest of course, but the water vapor going into the stratosphere, a very dry part of our atmosphere, is huge compared to the “natural” amounts there. And while we don’t know the rate that water vapor can leave the stratosphere, it certainly isn’t quickly. Of course it’s also CO2 and NO2, but the water vapor dwarfs the effects of both those gases in the stratosphere. Since the vast majority is being injected over the polar regions, where the stratosphere is much lower than near the equator, it’s no small effect on the planet. ---
**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 29, 2013, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/209 "2013-12-29T02:04:18Z")
And no, you won’t find much about that in the IPCC reports, or any warmer blogs. That’s because those are not science based sources. ---
**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 29, 2013, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/210 "2013-12-29T02:20:08Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > And no, you won’t find much about that in the IPCC reports, or any warmer blogs. That’s because those are not science based sources. A lie as shown already in post 205. And as scientists did review and contributed to the IPCC report, your point here is also dumb. [http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UlvpNH\_Ix8E](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UlvpNH_Ix8E) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis One has to see the end of the Complete Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment (166MB) (PDF) to see that they base their report on published science. ---
**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 29, 2013, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/211 "2013-12-29T02:23:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > A lie as shown already in post 205. You complete loser. There is nothing about stratospheric moisture, aircraft exhaust, much less the long term effects of adding all that water vapor to the dry atmosphere over the poles. ---
**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 29, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/212 "2013-12-29T02:28:09Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > You complete loser. There is nothing about stratospheric moisture, aircraft exhaust, much less the long term effects of adding all that water vapor to the dry atmosphere over the poles. Nah, the loser is you, you are claiming a lot but you need to cite who is telling you that those items are so important that override what most scientists agree is going on. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/213 "2013-12-29T02:48:40Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > My layman’s understanding would say primarily it’s molecular absorbtion range and relative frequency in nature, plus how feedback loops with water vapor work. But it’s not simple. AGW is rather difficult science, and I think we’d all appreciate it if you spent some time looking it up on your own. CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O I’ve been following the stupid motherfucker’s links … some of the science is backward but enough follows: carbon dioxide has absorption spectra up the yingyang, but so does water. Now I have a hundred-fold mass with water … explain to me again why just the 60% mass of combustion is a problem (see equation above)? Methane (Natural Gas) is completely inert at these wavelengths. Everything I’ve read so far about CO2 cannot be applied to CH4. I looked, I tried, but it just wasn’t there. I’m serious about “Watts per square meter”, I don’t know what that means. If someone shoves it up my nose, I’m going to ask: can’t answer, I’m going to be pissed. ---
**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 29, 2013, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/214 "2013-12-29T02:54:40Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O > > I’ve been following the stupid motherfucker’s links … some of the science is backward but enough follows: carbon dioxide has absorption spectra up the yingyang, but so does water. Now I have a hundred-fold mass with water … explain to me again why just the 60% mass of combustion is a problem (see equation above)? > > Methane (Natural Gas) is completely inert at these wavelengths. Everything I’ve read so far about CO2 cannot be applied to CH4. I looked, I tried, but it just wasn’t there. I’m serious about “Watts per square meter”, I don’t know what that means. If someone shoves it up my nose, I’m going to ask: can’t answer, I’m going to be pissed. Useless calculations, way over his head, therefore the experts on the matter are inventing this… :rolleyes: :sigh: There is a reason why you should ask your questions to the experts, there are many universities or researchers where you can sent your questions and stop pretending that you are making any good arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/215 "2013-12-29T04:17:07Z")
How about stopping with the back and forth insults for a minute and telling my if my post (183) (that Siberia won’t feed the world). Is mistaken, stupid, or maybe correct? ---
**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 29, 2013, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/216 "2013-12-29T04:38:56Z")
> [@Mapache](#): > > How about stopping with the back and forth insults for a minute and telling my if my post (183) (that Siberia won’t feed the world). Is mistaken, stupid, or maybe correct? (speaking of insults, you should notice who is resorting to the personal M-F bombs, in general I degrade stupid ideas) AFAIK it is possible, the big fly in the ointment (and you should see the size of those suckers in the summer close to the arctic circle) is the timing. And this is where the issue of controlling emissions enters the picture, until we can control our emissions what will take place in locations like Siberia will be a moving target. And in the meantime going towards that goal will only mean more weather uncertainty and not very productive until we are sure about how much we will end up emitting. > **[Global Warming and Siberia: Blessing or Curse? - GeoCurrents](http://www.geocurrents.info/blog/2012/05/22/global-warming-and-siberia-blessing-or-curse/)** > > GeoCurrents has recently emphasized the forbidding cold of the Siberian winter, stressing the obstacles that such a climate presents for the development of the region. Unmentioned in these posts is the possibility that Siberia’s climate will... > [@](#): > > Another problem with the predicted positive consequences for Siberia’s agriculture concerns seasonal distribution of the overall warming. In many areas, warming has affected only winter temperatures, with temperatures during the growing season remaining stable or even declining. Russian scientists who examined trends in the “degree of continentality”—that is, the difference between average summer and average winter temperatures—showed that the Siberian climate in general has become less continental. Winters, in other words, have been growing milder more rapidly than summers have been growing warmer. For instance, the average summer temperature in Krasnoyarsk actually fell by 0.4 degrees between 1940 and 1990. In the far northeast, however, the opposite trend is observed: a widening of the seasonal gap over the period between 1950 and 2000. > > Russia’s other potential gains from global warming could also be matched by losses. The thawing of permafrost, for example, could cause havoc with oil and gas pipelines, as well as with other industrial and residential structures. In cities such as Norilsk and Irkutsk, such gradual destruction of building foundations is already happening. The retreat of the Arctic pack ice also presents problems as well as opportunities. As the ocean becomes more accessible, it could also become more insecure. As a result, Russia is contemplating stationing more troops into the far north. A 2011 article quotes Anton Vasilev, special ambassador for Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as arguing that “Our northern border used to be closed because of ice and a severe climate. But the ice is going away we cannot leave 20,000 kilometres unwatched. We can’t leave ourselves in a position where we are undefended.” > > The warming of Siberia’s climate may even harm the health of Siberia’s residents. The expected increase in weather variability, marked by more frequent anomalies and extreme events, could compromise the human immune response, especially among Siberian indigenous peoples. While it may not appear dangerous to inhabitants of warmer climes, studies show that a rise of summer temperature to 29° C and above causes increased mortality among peoples of the Far North. In addition to autoimmune disorders, other health consequences of global warming in Siberia would include a rise in enterovirus-caused infections, gastroenteritis, parasitical diseases, botulism, and rabies. Already in the last five years reports have been appearing of infection-spreading ticks and mites emerging earlier in the season in south Siberian regions of Omsk and Novosibirsk. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/217 "2013-12-29T04:39:21Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > explain to me again CBF. Take a fucking high school science class. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/218 "2013-12-29T09:51:28Z")
> [@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. [Moderating] Referring to other posters as “motherfuckers” is a violation of the Pit’s language rules. Please avoid doing this in the future. No warning issued. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/219 "2013-12-29T10:50:09Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > All human activity, including many more things than two (like cow farts). I agree that cow farts should fall under “human activity” for purposes of discussing the environment. But it’s still kinda funny to put it that way. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/220 "2013-12-29T15:28:38Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > CBF. Take a fucking high school science class. Can do … Moderator Miller … I’m genuinely pleased to see that list of prohibited expressions fully enforced here. You can expect my full co-operation. > [@Mapache](#): > > 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. First of all, there may not be more than 15 billion to feed. Second of all, I probably should have said 2 billion eh? The point being, there’s a lot of flatland up there that could be leveed and drained … and still stay below the Arctic Circle. We can do amazing things with GMO’s, but 24 hour days would be a long shot, for sure. I believe that the angle of the sunlight is not a problem, it’s powerful enough to burn your eyes out even at sunset (so don’t do it). It should be enough for photosynthesis. The measure used is the degree-day, and it’s based on temperature and time. As I understand it, if there’s enough degree-days in a given season to grow wheat, then you can. > [@Mapache](#): > > How about stopping with the back and forth insults for a minute and telling my if my post (183) (that Siberia won’t feed the world). Is mistaken, stupid, or maybe correct? Aye … I feel like I’ve jumped into the middle of something I maybe shouldn’t have. Sei-la-vie. I’ll say you are probably correct in your post #183, or maybe mostly correct is the better phrasing. Now, if thinking of just one single benefit makes me a climate change denier … pah … I don’t know what to say … but it smells like theology to me. Happy New Year to all and we’ll try again next time this subject is pitted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029.md?page=12)