# 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:** 4
**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, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/61 "2013-12-24T19:48:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, you are only avoiding dealing then with what I did say, the billion issue was already granted on my second post before the \*\*Bricker \*\*show started, but is it more fun to you to claim that I was fooling you. BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Your second post is post #3. It says NOTHING like that. You’re a goddamn liar. Look at this sequence of posts: > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/62 "2013-12-24T19:49:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, it was already pre-replied by me in an early post, and no, \*\*Bricker \*\*should deal with the issue that I pointed out, not one that I was not pressing about, he and you are avoiding the real issue and the ones doing the real tap dancing. What the fuck is “pre-replied?” Moron. Animal. Hombre incapaz y ignorante. ---
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/63 "2013-12-24T19:59:30Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Hey guys, here’s a great idea. Let’s _not_ let **Brickhead** turn this into “The **Brickhead** Hair-Splitting Idiocy Show”. You know, just because he posts stupid bullshit doesn’t mean you have to respond. He’s a lying shitbag who will NEVER acknowledge that what he’s doing is beside the point, because he _already knows that_. This kind of discussion happens because there are many posters who apparently believe that if they concede error on any point, the penalty is having a hot poker shoved up their rectum. Yes, there are two points in play: the relatively minor one I’m harping about, and the major point of the thread, which is that conservative groups are funding anti-climate-change activities (although to a much lesser dollar figure than the OP claims.) I’m happy to discuss either one – except I don’t contest the second point. The first point remains in hot contention, though, because **GIGOBuster** , fearing the hot poker penalty, won’t simply say he was wrong to unreservedly endorse the OP. He slipped in a soft backpedal about how there was some "exaggeration,’ and now wants to just put that aside and not discuss it. Nothing would stop this as quickly as GIGOBuster manning up and saying, clearly and unambiguously, “Yes, I was wrong to endorse the $1 billion claim.” When I’ve been wrong, I have had no problem clearly, completely, and unreservedly saying so. But he won’t. And no, I won’t let it go. I grant it’s a minor point, but it’s bullshit for a guy who cloaks himself in the accuracy of science to refuse to clearly admit to error. And unless he does, I won’t stop reminding him of it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/64 "2013-12-24T20:06:55Z")
Or, it might just be that you insist on pursuing the minor, even insignificant, point because its the one you think you will win. You tend to be a wee bit competitive, Counselor. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/65 "2013-12-24T20:07:27Z")
So, rather than attempting to address the report that conservative groups are funding AGW dissention, the local righties are instead quibbling over _how much_ those groups are spending? Wow. ---
**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/66 "2013-12-24T20:07:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And you are showing your ignorance to others, I guess you did swallow the idea from another poster that places like Skeptical Science are a bad thing to check, unfortunately what you show here is not only ignorance of the subject but ignorance on what should be a reliable source. As even conservative scientists like Barry Bickmore report, Skeptical science has to be seen as a resource to check what in heck scientists are basing their ideas. Does calling me ignorant first make you right? Let’s start with the SciAm citation, can you explain to me, in your own words, exactly why CO2 in the atmosphere causes the temperature of the entire atmosphere to increase? “A rather straightforward calculation showed that doubling the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere… which would arrive in the late 21st century if no steps were taken to curb emissions… should raise the temperature of the surface roughly one degree C.” I’ll give you 10,000 ppm (1%), should make the straightforward calculation even easier. ---
**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, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/67 "2013-12-24T20:10:45Z")
Be careful using Vyvanse for your ADHD symptoms, it’s know to cause sudden death in some patients . ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/68 "2013-12-24T20:15:02Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > So, rather than attempting to address the report that conservative groups are funding AGW dissention, the local righties are instead quibbling over _how much_ those groups are spending? Wow. Yes. The OP’s focus is not the fact that funding exists – certainly liberal groups fund pro-AGW activities. The OP’s focus is that a billion dollars is being spent to push the anti-AGW agenda. That’s not true, and is worthy of correction. Why “wow?” An error about a billion dollars should go unremarked, in your view? It doesn’t need to be a long discussion – a simple acknowledgement of the truth, and the topic is closed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/69 "2013-12-24T20:15:47Z")
> [@](#): > > …I’ll give you 10,000 ppm (1%), should make the straightforward calculation even easier. So, all those scientists are mathtards? You passed Calculus 101? Therefore, they should just shut the fuck up and take it from you? ---
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/70 "2013-12-24T20:16:26Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Or, it might just be that you insist on pursuing the minor, even insignificant, point because its the one you think you will win. You tend to be a wee bit competitive, Counselor. It’s the only point I dispute. I never denied that conservative groups fund anti-AGW studies. I only entered the thread to point out that the study that claimed $1 billion was fatally flawed. So, yes, I’m pushing this point because I think I will win it. Why else? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/71 "2013-12-24T20:18:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > The OP’s focus is not the fact that funding exists – certainly liberal groups fund pro-AGW activities. The OP’s focus is that a billion dollars is being spent to push the anti-AGW agenda. That’s not true, and is worthy of correction. > > Why “wow?” > > An error about a billion dollars should go unremarked, in your view? > > It doesn’t need to be a long discussion – a simple acknowledgement of the truth, and the topic is closed. OK, I’ll start! On this piddling point, this insignificant quibble, you are totally, one hundred percent right! Hands down, no question, nailed it! (C’mon, guys! Its Christmas, what the heck…join in!) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/72 "2013-12-24T20:20:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …So, yes, I’m pushing this point because I think I will win it. Why else? You really don’t know, do you? ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/73 "2013-12-24T20:22:31Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > OK, I’ll start! On this piddling point, this insignificant quibble, you are totally, one hundred percent right! Hands down, no question, nailed it! > > (C’mon, guys! Its Christmas, what the heck…join in!) Thanks – but the person refusing to acknowledge this is not you. It’s **GIGOBuster**. He’s the one who claims he’s all about the facts, the science, the numbers – it’s for this reason that his dodges on this point are significant. Your concession, while appreciated, is not nearly as meaningful – especially since you never took up a contrary position in the first place. You were never wrong about this; you’re not conceding your own error now. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/74 "2013-12-24T20:25:36Z")
[![](https://i.imgur.com/PlLJbpC.jpg) ](https://i.imgur.com/PlLJbpC.jpg) Ho, ho, ho! ---
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/75 "2013-12-24T20:35:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s the only point I dispute. I never denied that conservative groups fund anti-AGW studies. I only entered the thread to point out that the study that claimed $1 billion was fatally flawed. “Fatally” does not mean what you think it does. ---
**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, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/76 "2013-12-24T20:37:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What the fuck is “pre-replied?” > > Moron. Animal. Hombre incapaz y ignorante. Here is what I said before you made it your show: > [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW, the Media Matters report was made before the paper from the OP, I do agree with \*\*mhendo \*\*that the amount of money used is an exaggeration, but what remains is a very important reason why we have a Republican party that invites misleading sources even to hearings on the issue in Washington. And that leads to: > [@Bricker](#): > > I’m happy to discuss either one – except I don’t contest the second point. The first point remains in hot contention, though, because **GIGOBuster** , fearing the hot poker penalty, won’t simply say he was wrong to unreservedly endorse the OP. He slipped in a soft backpedal about how there was some "exaggeration,’ and now wants to just put that aside and not discuss it. > > Nothing would stop this as quickly as GIGOBuster manning up and saying, clearly and unambiguously, “Yes, I was wrong to endorse the $1 billion claim.” > > When I’ve been wrong, I have had no problem clearly, completely, and unreservedly saying so. > > But he won’t. And no, I won’t let it go. I grant it’s a minor point, but it’s bullshit for a guy who cloaks himself in the accuracy of science to refuse to clearly admit to error. And unless he does, I won’t stop reminding him of it. Who who is doing the bullshit here? I therefore apologize for assuming that you and magellan would be smart enough to realize that I was not endorsing the 1 billion claim. ---
**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 24, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/77 "2013-12-24T20:40:22Z")
Ugh christ what is wrong with you people. ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/78 "2013-12-24T20:41:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “Fatally” does not mean what you think it does. Fatally flawed as to its claim of $1 billion. “Fatal” in this case means utterly wrong. And you agree that it’s wrong in that claim, don’t you? ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/79 "2013-12-24T20:50:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Here is what I said before you made it your show: > > And that leads to: > Who who is doing the bullshit here? > > I therefore apologize for assuming that you and magellan would be smart enough to realize that I was not endorsing the 1 billion claim. Why don’t you quote your earlier posts? Answer: because your earlier posts unreservedly accept the $1 billion as fact: > [@GIGObuster](#): > > There are many reasons why I call those \*\*\*Stink \*\*\*Thanks. > > [Meet The Climate Denial Machine | Media Matters for America](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545) > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Scholars? Maybe scholars of the methods for deceptive messages. Why does my “show” start at a place that conceals what really happened? I asked you a simple question, pointing out the flaw in the $1 billion number: > [@GIGObuster](#): > > There are many reasons why I call those \*\*\*Stink \*\*\*Thanks. > > [Meet The Climate Denial Machine | Media Matters for America](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545) > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Scholars? Maybe scholars of the methods for deceptive messages. > [@Bricker](#): > > I suggest that study is flawed: > > He then predicts: > > I’m especially interested in **GIGOBuster** ’s reaction to this criticism. Is it valid? Your reply? Here: > [@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. THAT is what you should be quoting – I asked you straight up about the billion dollars. Didn’t I? And you said you thought the criticism was not valid. Didn’t you? Yes, or no? ---
**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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/80 "2013-12-24T20:53:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I therefore apologize for assuming that you and magellan would be smart enough to realize that I was not endorsing the 1 billion claim. This quote bears repeating! You say that you were not endorsing the 1 billion claim. That’s an absolute lie. Look: > [@Adler](#): > > No matter. The Brulle study will serve its purpose, and the “$1 billion per year of climate denial” factoid will soon become a regular claim in the climate policy debate. > [@Bricker](#): > > I’m especially interested in GIGOBuster’s reaction to this criticism. Is it valid? > [@](#): > > AEI does relatively little on environmental issues… > [@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. There it is. Liar. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029.md?page=5)