# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/21 "2013-12-24T14:44:25Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, there’s fucktons and then there’s _fucktons_. English or metric? ---
**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 24, 2013, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/22 "2013-12-24T14:51:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Agreed, but I think you’ll find some people who will dispute even **that.** They see climate change hype as a conspiracy by socialists to justify expansion of government power, and I’m not making that up. I am aware of efforts to fund also semi pro trolls to prowl the internet forums, but it is clear to me that any one that is prejudiced against any change that even smells like a liberal idea will be willing to copy and paste stupid arguments for free. Those derpy guys even want to tell us that if a site that links to the science has no definition of the global warming term like NASA does it is therefore unreliable. (Yes, there a few of those in this message board) As they say, never blame malice when stupidity is enough, but one should not forget that virtually all the fake skeptic ideas those trolls are pasting in message boards come or have their basis on the misleading and lying “evidence” produced by the think thanks that we are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![BubbaDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bubbadog/32/333_2.png) [@BubbaDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BubbaDog)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/23 "2013-12-24T14:53:08Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Taking the question seriously: The attempt to either deny the reality of global climate change; or in the case of some pro-apocalypse Christians, the desire to do as much damage to the climate as possible in the belief it will bring about the end of the world and their ascension into heaven. The same sort who were pro-nuclear war back in the Reagan era, and who interpret God giving stewardship of nature to humans to mean that humanity should _destroy_ nature so that Jesus will come back. Now just what the fuck is a “pro-apocalypse Christian”? Other than the fact that **The Pro-Apocalypse Christians** would be a great band name I’m not sure they exist. Are you talking about Rapture freaks? Because while they seem to get woodies about the end of times I haven’t seen any evidence showing that they promote the advancement of destructive actions by mankind. ---
**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 24, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/24 "2013-12-24T15:06:20Z")
> [@BubbaDog](#): > > Now just what the fuck is a “pro-apocalypse Christian”? > > Other than the fact that **The Pro-Apocalypse Christians** would be a great band name I’m not sure they exist. > > Are you talking about Rapture freaks? Because while they seem to get woodies about the end of times I haven’t seen any evidence showing that they promote the advancement of destructive actions by mankind. You obviously have not heard of people like Republican Inhofe that even in congress hearings declares that this is a hoax because “god is up there” controlling this and therefore nothing bad will happen to the climate. AFAIK there are reports of the religious right being divided on the issue, but the money people continue to make inroads to get them (specially the ones that count because they are in positions of governance) and other faithful politicians to ignore the issue. > **[The 'Green Dragon' Slayers: How the Religious Right and the Corporate Right...](https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwingwatch/report/the-green-dragon-slayers-how-the-religious-right-and-the-corporate-right-are-joining-forces-to-fight-environmental-protection)** > [@](#): > > As Republican officials accelerate their efforts to weaken environmental regulations and attack climate scientists, energy corporations are reaping the benefits of a decades-long effort to put a more benevolent, humanitarian, and even religious spin to their anti-environmental activism. Among their most valuable allies are the Religious Right organizations and leaders who have emerged as ready apologists for polluters and critics of efforts to protect the environment. The Religious Right’s attacks are intended to lend credence to the efforts of corporations and the GOP to quash the Environmental Protection Agency and chip away at state and federal environmental safeguards. And increasingly, Republican leaders themselves are echoing the same misleading arguments and themes of the Religious Right’s corporate apologists. > > Buoyed by corporate finances and a radical ‘dominion theology,’ the Religious Right has become more aggressive and fanatical in its defense of corporations and denial of climate science. Trying to combat the increasing number of evangelical Christians who are part of the “creation care” movement that is calling for a greater commitment to combat climate change, the Religious Right is working to misrepresent the environmental movement as dangerously deceitful, harmful to the poor and destructive to Christianity. > > Corporate America’s Religious Right Power Play > > In the last decade, as evangelical Christian leaders increasingly became involved in conservation, “creation care” and taking action against global climate change, the alarms went up in corporate America that many traditional members of the conservative coalition were becoming advocates for environmental protection. To counter the rise of the faith-based environmentalist Evangelical Climate Initiative, the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance emerged. The ISA, propped up by business interests including Exxon Mobil, has peddled misleading and false claims to make the case that climate change is a myth. In 2007, the ISA was renamed the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and became more belligerent and zealous in its anti-environmental activities. > > The Cornwall Alliance is led by E. Calvin Beisner, who believes that since God granted humans “dominion” over the earth, humans have a right to exploit all natural resources. As Randall Balmer writes in Thy Kingdom Come, Beisner “asserts that God has placed all of nature at the disposal of humanity.” Balmer quotes Beisner’s own summary of his dominion theology: “All of our acquisitive activities should be undertaken with the purpose of extending godly rule, or dominion.” As Balmer notes, “the combination of dominion theology from the Religious Right and the wise use ideology of corporate and business interests has created a powerful coalition to oppose environmental protection.” > > According to a report by Think Progress, the Cornwall Alliance is a front group for the shadowy James Partnership. Both the James Partnership and the Cornwall Alliance are closely linked to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), an anti-environmental group that is “funded by at least $542,000 from ExxonMobil, $60,500 from Chevron, and $1,280,000 from Scaife family foundations, which are rooted in wealth from Gulf Oil and steel interests.” CFACT is also part of a climate change denialist network funded by the ExxonMobil-financed Competitive Enterprise Institute. > > Beisner is a CFACT board member and an “adjunct fellow” of the Acton Institute, which is primarily funded by groups like ExxonMobil, the Scaife foundations and the Koch brothers. Beisner is also an adviser to the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which is financed by the oil-backed Earthart Foundation, the Koch brothers, and ExxonMobil. > > In fact, Beisner is not a scientist and has no scientific credentials. Despite claiming to be an authority on energy and environmental issues, he received his Ph.D. in Scottish History. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/25 "2013-12-24T15:09:54Z")
> [@BubbaDog](#): > > Now just what the fuck is a “pro-apocalypse Christian”? > > Other than the fact that **The Pro-Apocalypse Christians** would be a great band name I’m not sure they exist. Sure they do. I myself was one back when I was an early-teenager and still Christian. And, they are people who actively want the end of the world. > [@BubbaDog](#): > > Are you talking about Rapture freaks? Because while they seem to get woodies about the end of times I haven’t seen any evidence showing that they promote the advancement of destructive actions by mankind. Well, they do. James Watt in the Reagan administration was well known for it at the time. So was Jerry Falwell’s attempts to convince Reagan to start a nuclear war. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/26 "2013-12-24T15:15:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Don’t think so when right away they ignore that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each to write articles critical of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on climate change. The claim was “relatively little.” The entire budget of AEI is used to aggregate the total $1 billion. You say they offer $10,000 each to scientists. But $10,000 is five orders of magnitude less than one billion. So that would be “relatively little,” wouldn’t it? Of course, that analysis I just did is equally flawed: it compares one expenditure to the aggregate of all expenditures from all organizations. Right? **GIGOBuster** , you claim to be driven by accurate science. But here you were shown a clear, unambiguous, absolute error in the science, and your first answer is to defend it. You don’t acknowledge the error – you assist in concealing it. I’m linking to this post the next time you try to claim you’re all about the science. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/27 "2013-12-24T15:17:50Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Frankly, who cares if it is a billion or a million. Quibbling about the amount is just throwing dust in people’s eyes. The important point is that a fuckton of money is being spent by right wingers and business interests to obfuscate the facts and persuade voters and politicians that the (very firm) scientific consensus is wrong. There is a huge difference. A billion is a thousand millions. ---
**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 24, 2013, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/28 "2013-12-24T15:21:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The claim was “relatively little.” The entire budget of AEI is used to aggregate the total $1 billion. You say they offer $10,000 each to scientists. But $10,000 is five orders of magnitude less than one billion. > > So that would be “relatively little,” wouldn’t it? > > Of course, that analysis I just did is equally flawed: it compares one expenditure to the aggregate of all expenditures from all organizations. > > Right? Of course yours is flawed, **I already made the point that the OP is an exaggeration** , > [@Bricker](#): > > **GIGOBuster** , you claim to be driven by accurate science. But here you were shown a clear, unambiguous, absolute error in the science, and your first answer is to defend it. You don’t acknowledge the error – you assist in concealing it. > > I’m linking to this post the next time you try to claim you’re all about the science. And I will have to say that it is you who is concealing that I reported that the research in the OP was an exaggeration, but look at the cites (made even years before the flawed research of the OP) and take \*\*also \*\*into account the expenses in political propaganda used to defeat even conservatives like Ingus that \*\*was \*\*driven by science. Just the effort to remove him from congress was no small potatoes. Several millions of dollars are used to start and maintain many of those astroturf organizations. ---
**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 24, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/29 "2013-12-24T15:30:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is a huge difference. > > A billion is a thousand millions. And again, IMHO this is dishonest too. Many of the ones funding them do know already that climate change is not the only reason for being, but they do not care much about what they do elsewhere, what counts for them is that the funding they provide allows those groups to give lots of time and effort to fellows that will vote just as they expect. To benefit their bottom line. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/30 "2013-12-24T15:38:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And I will have to say that it is you who is concealing that I reported that the research in the OP was an exaggeration, but look at the cites (made even years before the flawed research of the OP) and take \*\*also \*\*into account the expenses in political propaganda used to defeat even conservatives like Ingus that \*\*was \*\*driven by science. > > Just the effort to remove him from congress was no small potatoes. Several millions of dollars are used to start and maintain many of those astroturf organizations. No, you didn’t “report” that the research was an exaggeration. The OP, post #1, offered the research as fact. You replied in post #2, endorsing it and saying NOTHING about it being an exaggeration. You also authored post #3, which again said nothing about exaggeration. I authored post #4, which highlighted the exaggeration and asked for your comment. You replied to that question in post #6, defending the piece and saying NOTHING about exaggeration. Finally, after **mhendo** also highlighted the problem, you concede in one throwaway phrase in post #7 that the study contains an exaggeration, but you devote more effort to defending it even while conceding the flaw. Isn’t that exactly what happened? Isn’t your pretense of interest in objective criteria pretty much destroyed? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/31 "2013-12-24T15:39:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is a huge difference. > > A billion is a thousand millions. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And again, IMHO this is dishonest too. Many of the ones funding them do know already that climate change is not the only reason for being, but they do not care much about what they do elsewhere, what counts for them is that the funding they provide allows those groups to give lots of time and effort to fellows that will vote just as they expect. To benefit their bottom line. True or false: a billion is a thousand millions. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/32 "2013-12-24T15:40:14Z")
Science should study both sides, fairly and without drama. Or just maybe, it’s not science. One billion dollars only keep Bank of America afloat for 2 hours. Totally chump change compared to the cost of moving everyone who lives below 50 feet elevation (New York, London, Los Angeles … all underwater someday). Most of these quotes are from commercial media … what are they selling? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/33 "2013-12-24T15:44:42Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Science should study both sides, fairly and without drama. There _is no_ “two sides” here, scientifically. There’s the scientific fact of global climate change, and there is the _anti-scientific_ attempts to deny reality & discredit it. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/34 "2013-12-24T16:02:15Z")
I say it’s Orbital Forcing that causes Global Warming, which just happens to allow more CO2 into the atmosphere … has this been proved wrong? If it’s science, it has to be able to be proved wrong, otherwise it’s just philosophy. Wasn’t there a recent Nobel Prize given for evidence that the Big Bang Theory isn’t quite right? Or are you recommending we never ever try to show Relativity as being not exactly perfect? Neigh-saying is part of the scientific process, Look at the Standard model, where does a fuckton fit in. Do we ignore the evidence or rework our Standard Model? Disclaimer: If curbing CO2 emission also curbs pollution in general, then I’m all for it ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/35 "2013-12-24T16:05:48Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Most of these quotes are from commercial media … what are they selling? Advertising space. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/36 "2013-12-24T16:09:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Advertising space. “Natural Gas, today’s green alternative. We remove ALL the CO2 before we send God’s Gift for Heating down the pipeline” ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/37 "2013-12-24T17:13:09Z")
(a) Not too impressed with this study for reasons already pointed out. That all the different outfits add up to a billion dollar in funding for ALL their activities does not strike me as particularly unexpected. So activists who oppose our position are being activist about it, and people whose wealth may be at risk will invest part of that wealth to protect the rest of it. Gee, what a surprise. (b) OTOH science is NOT a “both sides of the debate” thing - if it’s good science the experiment/analysis contains its own falsifiability but its truth is not a matter for appeal to public sentiment. Smoking cigarettes was never good or harmless for you, Earth was never the static center of the universe. We CAN however decide politically that _we’d rather not_ adopt the scientists’ recommendations, and instead take our chances and risk the costs. © Both “global warming” and more specifically the influence of anthropogenic CO2 in climate have been in science’s awareness for a century, it’s not something some liberals pulled out of their asses c. 1990 just to be mean to the Oil/Coal industry. (d) Some denialists’ position seems to be that because correcting anthropogenic climate change would mean some of the current very large industries/very wealthy nations would be forced to eat a huge loss, and it would require much government intervention, then it must be some sort of lefty plot. (e) **Der Trihs** is not completely out in wackoland about this, yes there are Eschatophiles out there who can’t wait for something to already trigger the End Time (and that’s not just Christians, there are also a Jewish brand who’d like the mosques on the Mount blown up and the Temple Rebuilt so the Messiah may show up already). These folks ISTM have somehow missed the part where it says “You shall not put The Lord to the test” and (for Christians) “None knows the day and hour but the Father” ---
**Author:** ![SeldomSeen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ba0ec/32.png) [@SeldomSeen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeldomSeen)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/38 "2013-12-24T17:45:03Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Neigh-saying is part of the scientific process Sounds like [a load of horse hockey to me.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=15641) Unless we’re talking about equine CO2 emissions? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/39 "2013-12-24T17:45:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Sure they do. I myself was one back when I was an early-teenager and still Christian. And, they are people who actively want the end of the world. Your personal problems aren’t necessariy indicative of how other people think. > [@](#): > > Well, they do. James Watt in the Reagan administration was well known for it at the time. So was Jerry Falwell’s attempts to convince Reagan to start a nuclear war. You realize, I assume, that such quotes attributed to James Watt claiming nuclear war is great are apocryphal, denied by Watt himself, and most likely baloney. I also cannot find any quote from Jerry Falwell in support of nuclear war. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/40 "2013-12-24T17:51:30Z")
“pro-warming”?? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029.md?page=3)