# 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:** 5
**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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/81 "2013-12-24T20:53:46Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > 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. There is a reason why deniers like you demand just the words of an anonymous poster from a message board, and that is to avoid dealing with the history and the science. To begin with, do you take back your say so that ‘this is not science’? Are you \*\*now \*\*aware of why your idea of assigning this to orbital forcing was not a good one? Do you really think it is ok to ignore history and repeat the mistakes of ignoring what was discussed in the past and how the real men of science did deal with the nits of the issue in the past? > **[RealClimate: The carbon dioxide theory of Gilbert Plass](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-carbon-dioxide-theory-of-gilbert-plass/)** > > RealClimate: Gilbert Plass, Lewis Kaplan, the history of the "carbon dioxide theory", climate sensitivity and how well it stands up 50 years later. ---
**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, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/82 "2013-12-24T21:01:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Do you really think it is ok to ignore history and repeat the mistakes of ignoring what was discussed in the past and how the real men of science did deal with the nits of the issue in the past? Do YOU really think it’s Ok to deny and lie about things you just said on a message board, that anyone can [link to and see?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16954632&postcount=6) What right do you have to talk about accuracy in science? We can all see how much you actually care about accuracy. ---
**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, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/83 "2013-12-24T21:03:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This quote bears repeating! > > You say that you were not endorsing the 1 billion claim. That’s an absolute lie. Look: > > There it is. > > Liar. You do not know BTW means uh? It means By the way, it is a followup to the quote you are using to call me liar, I will let others to conclude if your omission is an honest one. Once again here is the quote that should follow (and indeed I posted right away to clarify that I was not approving of the 1 billion number: > [@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. BTW 🙂 you should read the post of **mhendo** , as I pointed before I agree with him, your poison tongue is only poisoning you right 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 24, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/84 "2013-12-24T21:06:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do YOU really think it’s Ok to deny and lie about things you just said on a message board, that anyone can [link to and see?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16954632&postcount=6) No, of course it depends on who is just not paying attention. Everyone can see the post I made **right away** to clarify and you are denying it is there. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16954654&postcount=7](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16954654&postcount=7) As it is your denial of the post of \*\*mhendo \*\*and my support for it. So indeed, I’m sorry for assuming that you are honest. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/85 "2013-12-24T21:06:32Z")
Holy shit, I had no idea Bricker was also a climate change denier. I guess he could just be a partisan hack and quibbling with GIGO over a relatively trivial bit, but the generalized strategy of harping on a relative banality as if that wrong element deflates more than its actual worth is part and parcel for the denier’s media strategy. Wow. ---
**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, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/86 "2013-12-24T21:06:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You do not know BTW means uh? It means By the way, it is a followup to the quote you are using to call me liar, I will let others to conclude if your omission is an honest one. > > Once again here is the quote that should follow (and indeed I posted right away to clarify that I was not approving of the 1 billion number: > > BTW 🙂 you should read the post of **mhendo** , as I pointed before I agree with him, your poison tongue is only poisoning you right now. Yes, **mhendo** posted, and you agreed with him. In post #7. That’s not in dispute. Do you imagine that this somehow erases your earlier posts? You don’t get to change your mind and then pretend that’s what you meant all along. You made posts BEFORE post #7 – what about 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 24, 2013, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/87 "2013-12-24T21:15:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, **mhendo** posted, and you agreed with him. In post #7. > > That’s not in dispute. > > Do you imagine that this somehow erases your earlier posts? > > You don’t get to change your mind and then pretend that’s what you meant all along. > > You made posts BEFORE post #7 – what about them? :rolleyes: I was commenting on my main point, the “scholars” they use have conflicts of interest galore. That and that the money used to defeat even Republicans that do follow the science was and is no small potatoes. Once again, let the record show that you are not even sorry or apologizing for your poison tongue and straw-maning. ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/88 "2013-12-24T21:27:08Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Holy shit, I had no idea Bricker was also a climate change denier. I guess he could just be a partisan hack and quibbling with GIGO over a relatively trivial bit, but the generalized strategy of harping on a relative banality as if that wrong element deflates more than its actual worth is part and parcel for the denier’s media strategy. Wow. Oh well it is Christmas, let me defend him here. 🙂 I tell you that he has in the past asked questions about it but on a previous encounter we had he is reasonable, IIRC it was about [Cuccinelli and his inquisition of climate researcher Michael Man](http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/03/02/virginia-supreme-court-tosses-out-ag-cuccinelli-inquisition-on-michael-mann/) on that thread Bricker showed to me that he is a guy that was open to the science and did criticize then Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli for that stunt. Other times he has show a lot of doubt but he does pull back when confronted with the evidence. What we have here is just a misunderstanding, we will see if he does take back all that colorful runny rhetoric launched at me, but I do not care much when the evidence here shows who is not paying attention. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/89 "2013-12-25T00:22:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > There is a reason why deniers like you demand just the words of an anonymous poster from a message board, and that is to avoid dealing with the history and the science. > > To begin with, do you take back your say so that ‘this is not science’? > > Are you \*\*now \*\*aware of why your idea of assigning this to orbital forcing was not a good one? > > Do you really think it is ok to ignore history and repeat the mistakes of ignoring what was discussed in the past and how the real men of science did deal with the nits of the issue in the past? > > [RealClimate: The carbon dioxide theory of Gilbert Plass](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-carbon-dioxide-theory-of-gilbert-plass/) You haven’t answered my question … can you explain to me, in your own words, exactly why CO2 in the atmosphere causes the [average] temperature of the entire atmosphere to increase? If the answer is “no”, then it is not science, you’re just aping your scholarly priesthood. If the answer is “yes”, then please do so … serious … I honestly want to know. My hypothesis for Climate Change: Since the Earth doesn’t orbit the sun in a mathematically exact ellipse, the small variations cause the entire orbit to become smaller, then larger, then smaller … When the orbit is smaller, the atmosphere’s temperature rises due to more solar energy being received; larger orbit, less energy, lower temperatures. The rise in CO2 content at higher temperature is simply a higher content equilibrium state. was not stated to be good, just dis-provable. Thank you **elucidator** for fully demonstrating this about my hypothesis. Radiative fluxes are accounted for in my hypothesis. Plass give 8.3 W/m^2 for CO2, but the article doesn’t state what the total flux is for the atmosphere as a whole. Is there a table showing the relative fluxes of the various constituents? Wouldn’t we want LESS flux if we wanted HIGHER temperatures? C’mon now, how hard is it for you to just simply explain yourself? > [@elucidator](#): > > You passed Calculus 101? I passed Calculus 399, Gradients, but that’s somewhat superfluous to the current discourse. ---
**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 25, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/90 "2013-12-25T01:00:26Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > You haven’t answered my question … can you explain to me, in your own words, exactly why CO2 in the atmosphere causes the [average] temperature of the entire atmosphere to increase? If the answer is “no”, then it is not science, you’re just aping your scholarly priesthood. If the answer is “yes”, then please do so … serious … I honestly want to know. AFAIK there is a limit on how warm the earth can get, incidentally that 10,000 PPM point is a really peculiar number, I have seen it many times in denier sources in sorry attempts at avoiding with the issue, it is mostly related to how well plants will like that level, but ignores that humans begin to get dizzy at those concentrations and it is likely that long term exposure at it can be poisonous. What those deniers and you are doing here is to make an item that was made to generate misleading answers. The best way to realize that CO2 has not reformed from its rogue days is to look at Paleoclimate and see what the temperature was when higher levels of CO2 where in the atmosphere and what happened when there was a sudden increase. [http://www.earthgauge.net/wp-content/CF\_Tertiary.pdf](http://www.earthgauge.net/wp-content/CF_Tertiary.pdf) > [@](#): > > During the Cretaceous, Earth’s average temperature was 68 degrees Fahrenheit, about nine > degrees warmer than today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were around 580 parts per million > (compared to about 390 parts per million today). The high atitudes were significantly warmer and forests extended all > the way to the poles, covering most of Antarctica. The high levels of atmospheric CO2 > (at least 2,300 parts per million) that were produced by the impact, however, caused Earth’s temperature to rise an additional 13.5 degrees Fahrenheit over a period of centuries to millennia, further stressing ecosystems that were recovering from the sunlight block. The ocean stratification that the extreme high temperatures caused limited the amount of nutrient rich water coming up from the depths, devastating ocean ecosystems. These ecosystems took about three million years to recover, meaning that whole new species had to > evolve to establish the biodiversity necessary to fill the ecological “niches” which promote ecosystem stability. This “delay” in recovery worked to perpetuate the extreme CO2 levels; photosynthetic organisms at the ocean’s surface take carbon out of the atmosphere, and eventually die and fall to the ocean bottom, which works to “capture” carbon. As the ocean ecosystems recovered and carbon levels fell, the temperature fell as well, although it did remain significantly hotter than today. The recent discovery of the fossilized remains of a 40 foot long snake indicate that average annual temperature in the tropics 60-58 million years ago was at least 91 degrees Fahrenheit, compared with 81 degrees today. Cool temperatures limit the maximum size that cold-blooded animals, such as snakes, can reach. > > THE PALEOCENE/EOCENE THERMAL MAXIMUM > > About 55.5 million years ago, after the Earth’s ecosystems had recovered from the KBT asteroid collision, tectonic activity on continental margins caused the release of methane that had been stored in sediment for millions of years. As this methane was released (about 1.5 Gigatons worth, or 1.5 billion tons, over a period of 500-20,000 years; enough to raise atmospheric CO2 levels to around 1000 parts per million), the high latitides warmed by about 10 degrees Fahrenheit and the tropics by about three degrees. BTW if your standard for something to be science requires a poster on the internet to show it you are really lost, it is the science who you have to look at and deal with. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > My hypothesis for Climate Change: > Since the Earth doesn’t orbit the sun in a mathematically exact ellipse, the small variations cause the entire orbit to become smaller, then larger, then smaller … When the orbit is smaller, the atmosphere’s temperature rises due to more solar energy being received; larger orbit, less energy, lower temperatures. The rise in CO2 content at higher temperature is simply a higher content equilibrium state. > was not stated to be good, just dis-provable. Thank you **elucidator** for fully demonstrating this about my hypothesis. And as it was shown to be lacking, you have to ask yourself “why did the ones telling that that was a great idea lied to me?” Not holding my breath to see you follow that with your sources. [quote=“watchwolf49, post:89, topic:677029”] Radiative fluxes are accounted for in my hypothesis. Plass give 8.3 W/m^2 for CO2, but the article doesn’t state what the total flux is for the atmosphere as a whole. Is there a table showing the relative fluxes of the various constituents? Wouldn’t we want LESS flux if we wanted HIGHER temperatures? C’mon now, how hard is it for you to just simply explain yourself? As you are showing here, Plass is not the end of it, the nattering Plass got means that today changes in the approach and more information is used by scientists to report why you are not right. The Scientific American article were Realclimate links to has the references to the past and current research… [http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.8374,y.2010,no.1,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx](http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.8374,y.2010,no.1,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx) > [@](#): > > In 1956 Gilbert Plass was heir to a century of work that identified variations in the trace amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a possible cause of ice ages and interglacial periods. John Tyndall wrote in 1861 that slight changes in the amount of any of the radiatively active constituents of the atmosphere—water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone or hydrocarbons—may have produced “all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal … they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.” Thirty-five years later Svante Arrhenius published a landmark paper examining the effect of different concentrations of atmospheric CO2 on the temperature of Earth. His energy budget model, which he calculated by hand, contained estimates of the absorption and emission of terrestrial radiation by water vapor and carbon dioxide, but since infrared research was in its infancy then, Arrhenius had access to only very limited spectroscopic data. > > Because of these limitations, the carbon dioxide theory of climate change was in deep eclipse in 1938 when British scientist and engineer Guy Stewart Callendar revived it and placed it on a firm scientific basis. Callendar documented a significant upward trend in temperatures for the first four decades of the 20th century and noted the systematic retreat of glaciers. He compiled estimates of rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times and linked the rise of CO2 to the combustion of fossil fuel. Finally, he synthesized information newly available concerning the infrared absorption bands of trace atmospheric constituents and linked increased sky radiation from increased CO2 concentrations to the rising temperature trend. Today this is called The Callendar Effect. > > Building on such foundations, Plass was able to take the next steps in research and provide his masterful overview of the carbon dioxide theory and its implications for the future. He established connections between the physics of infrared absorption by gases, the geochemistry of the carbon cycle, feedback loops in the climate system and computer modeling. Using recent measurements of the influence of the 15-micrometer CO2 absorption band, Plass calculated a 3.6 degrees Celsius surface temperature increase for doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide and a 3.8 degree decrease if the concentration were halved. Contrary to the assumptions of many scientists at the time, the effect of water vapor absorption did not mask the carbon dioxide effect by any means. He used these results to argue for the applicability of the carbon dioxide theory of climate change for geological epochs and in recent decades. > > Stressing the intrinsic role carbon dioxide plays in our atmosphere, Plass discussed the danger of fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The six billion tons of CO2 being added to the atmosphere each year was sufficient to cause noticeable changes in the Earth’s radiation balance and thus the climate. He noted that the observed 1.1 degree rate of climate warming per century was in agreement with the predictions of the carbon dioxide theory. > > Waxing prophetic, Plass wrote that the oceans would be able to sequester only a small amount of the anthropogenic carbon, leaving the majority in the atmosphere. Accumulating atmospheric CO2 content from fossil fuel-based industrial activities would eventually result in a temperature rise of at least 7 degrees. Plass held out little hope for nuclear power—expressing an opinion that would not be widespread for several more decades. Presaging the work of Charles David Keeling, which began two years later, Plass called for new accurate measurements of the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which he rightly estimated should be on the order of 0.3 percent per year. Plass pointed out that humanity was conducting a large-scale experiment on the atmosphere, the results of which would not be available for several generations: “If at the end of this century, the average temperature has continued to rise and in addition measurement shows that the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount has also increased, it will be firmly established that carbon dioxide is a determining factor in causing climatic change.” > > There have been two interruptions (pauses, if you will) in the rise of global average temperature since 1956, and of course, Earth’s climate is influenced by more than just CO2. Other trace gases and black carbon warm the climate, and aerosols cool it. On a larger scale, the astronomical theory of orbital influences was revived circa 1976, and climate variation attributed to such factors as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and solar activity (or the lack thereof) are now being widely discussed. Still, more than 50 years later, scientists agree that the uncontrolled experiment pointed out by Plass in 1956 has been verified, and a warmer future caused by the radiative effects of CO2 is in store. The cutting edge question now is, What to do about it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/91 "2013-12-25T01:06:29Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Holy shit, I had no idea Bricker was also a climate change denier. I guess he could just be a partisan hack and quibbling with GIGO over a relatively trivial bit, but the generalized strategy of harping on a relative banality as if that wrong element deflates more than its actual worth is part and parcel for the denier’s media strategy. Wow. Oh, please. I’m not in the least a climate change denier. I admit I do not have the expertise to independently evaluate the totality of the evidence, but I am absolutely willing to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus: things are getting hotter, and mankind’s activity is contributing to that trend. But this is not a “relatively trivial bit.” The OP starts out by claiming, in the title, that there’s a BILLION dollars being used to fund anti-AGW work. In post #4, I criticize the gross methodology error that was used to derive that figure, and ask GIGO if that criticism is valid. He answers, “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’s absolutely and utterly wrong. He could have said, “Well, AEI is not blameless: they do offer scientists and economists $10,000 each to write articles critical of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on climate change. But the criticism you raise is correct: it’s not a billion dollars.” Why can’t he simply do that? He acts like any concession of error on his part, no matter how tiny, will result in severe beatings and malnourishment. Seriously: I agree it’s a tangential point, but why is GIGO immune from having to admit that yes, he was wrong? Why can’t he type those words? I’ve done it. Many times, alas. Why can’t he? The fact that he can’t is what is causing me to continue to harp on the point. I’m not going to give me the chance to simply stop defending the point and act like his error never happened. So tell me, **Rhythmdvl** – are YOU a denier of the plain facts? Am I incorrect in anything I said above? ---
**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 25, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/92 "2013-12-25T01:37:13Z")
Of course, getting on the subject at hand, it should be clear that I’m not backing the OP’s article, I continue to make the point that many other researches noticed all the money and misleading research that was used to influence the politicians in America, not as huge as the OP paper reports, but it is really naive to assume that all that money has not opened many doors and access to power. As I pointed before, it is dishonest to minimize what is going on, as Naomi Oreskes can tell you, this movie already happened before with the tobacco industry and it should be noticed that many of the same think thanks and even their scientists got also involved in the denial of climate change science. Simple logic should tell us that being a scientist on an issue like Tobacco smoke does not mean that magically you are an expert on all subjects, and that by “coincidence” their research in other subjects ends up supporting the use of products or materials that in reality produce harm. > **[Global Warming Deniers and Their Proven Strategy of Doubt](https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_warming_deniers_and_their_proven_strategy_of_doubt)** > > For years, free-market fundamentalists opposed to government regulation have sought to create doubt in the public’s mind about the dangers of smoking, acid rain, and ozone depletion. Now they have turned those same tactics on the issue of global... > [@](#): > > The story begins with the tobacco companies’ long-running effort to cast doubt on the links between cigarette smoking and human health effects, including lung cancer. One of the scientists the tobacco industry recruited to this cause was Frederick Seitz. Seitz was a distinguished solid-state physicist, who believed strongly in the role of science and technology in defending the United States during the Cold War. In the late 1950s and 1960s he rose to high levels in national science policy, serving, among other positions, as president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. > > However, in 1979, toward the end of his career, he took a new job: running a $45 million program for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco to support scientific research to defend the “product” — that is to say, tobacco — long after scientists and physicians had come to virtually unanimous agreement on the overwhelming harm that it caused. > > In the words of one industry document, Seitz’s program was to develop “an extensive body of scientifically, well-grounded data useful in defending the industry against attacks.” The goal was to fight science with science — or at least with the gaps and uncertainties in existing science, and with scientific research that could be used to deflect attention from the main event. Like the magician who waves his right hand to distract attention from what he is doing with his left, the tobacco industry would fund distracting research, such as studies on the dietary causes of atherosclerosis and the role of patients’ psychological attitudes on the progression of disease. > > In 1984, Seitz took up another cause, joining with two other prominent physicists, William Nierenberg and Robert Jastrow — both also long active in space and weapons programs — to found the George C. Marshall Institute. They created the institute to defend President Reagan’s Strategic > > ``` > After the Cold War, the Marshall Institute found a new enemy: environmentalists. > > ``` > > Defense Initiative (SDI) from attacks by the mainstream physics community. The Marshall Institute drew its funding from a handful of conservative political foundations, and it defended SDI by loud claims of Soviet military superiority, claims that were found only a few years later — when the USSR disintegrated and the Cold War ended — to have been exaggerated, at best. However, although the Soviet threat was gone and the Cold War was won, the institute didn’t go out of business. Instead, it found a new enemy: environmentalists. > > In the early 1980s, Nierenberg had chaired a major National Academy of Sciences review of global warming. Scientists had formed a consensus in the late 1970s that global warming was likely to result from increasing greenhouse gases released by burning fossil fuels, and that this would have serious consequences: glaciers and polar ice sheets would melt, causing sea levels to rise and inundating coastlines and major port cities; deserts would expand, reducing food production; and rapid habitat change could lead to serious biodiversity loss. But as chairman of the panel, Nierenberg rejected the conclusions of his fellow physical scientists and recruited several economists who argued that, rather than trying to prevent climate change, we should simply wait and see what happened and then adapt as events unfolded. If adaptation proved impossible, humans could always migrate, Nierenberg concluded, ignoring the overwhelming historical evidence of the widespread human suffering that has typically accompanied mass migration. > > Nierenberg also joined with another physicist, S. Fred Singer, to undermine regulatory action on sulfur dioxide, the principal cause of acid rain. In response to two National Academy reports suggesting that acid rain was real and serious, and its primary causes known, President Reagan commissioned an independent peer review of the existing scientific evidence. Most of the panel members were, actually, independent, and agreed with the National Academy that regulatory action to control sulfur > > ``` > The contrarian attacks became more virulent, more unprincipled, and more personal. > > ``` > > emissions was warranted. However, Nierenberg and Singer worked to challenge that conclusion, adding a policy-oriented appendix by Singer — which was not approved by the entire panel — that first advocated free-market approaches to controlling pollution, and then concluded (but without a real quantitative analysis) that the cost of reducing acid rain would very likely exceed the benefits. Nierenberg also worked behind the scenes with White House Science Advisor George Keyworth to soften the conclusions of the report’s executive summary and to make them seem more ambiguous than they had originally been. (Something Nierenberg would later accuse climate scientists of doing — only in the reverse.) > > Despite these machinations, the acid rain report was still stronger than the Reagan White House wanted, and the administration delayed releasing it until after Congress had defeated pending acid rain legislation. Several congresspersons later stated that had the peer review report been available when the vote was taken, it might well have gone the other way. > > It took several more years before the administration of George H. W. Bush implemented an acid rain reduction program organized around a cap-and-trade system. In one sense, this program has worked, reducing acid deposition in the Northeast by more than 50 percent, and — contrary to Singer’s claims — at one-tenth of the projected cost. But it was also too little, too late. Continued work by ecologists such as Gene Likens shows that Northeastern forests are still dying. > > In the late 1980s, the Marshall Institute turned to the denial of global warming. As scientific evidence emerged that warming was not only going to happen, but was perhaps already happening, the institute’s attacks became stronger and more unprincipled. These “contrarians” — because their positions were contrary to the majority scientific view — began taking evidence out of context, cherry-picking data, and misrepresenting what was actually being published in the scientific literature. For example, they distributed a “white paper” in 1989 falsely claiming that a review from NASA climate scientist James Hansen showed that recent warming was largely due to increased solar activity. > > When confronted with incontrovertible evidence that their arguments and cherry-picked facts were incorrect, the deniers refused to correct their mistakes and continued to spread the same misinformation. Indeed, as the science strengthened, and the evidence of the human fingerprint on the climate system began to strongly emerge, the contrarian attacks became more virulent, more unprincipled, and more personal. Personal indeed, as we can see here, contrarians do reach very quickly for personal attacks and want to pretend that therefore now everyone will ignore that the science is still not coming as they claim and there is still a lot of money that is being used to artificially prop up organizations, scientists and politicians that are misleading the American people. ---
**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 25, 2013, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/93 "2013-12-25T01:42:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Oh, please. I’m not in the least a climate change denier. I admit I do not have the expertise to independently evaluate the totality of the evidence, but I am absolutely willing to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus: things are getting hotter, and mankind’s activity is contributing to that trend. > > But this is not a “relatively trivial bit.” The OP starts out by claiming, in the title, that there’s a BILLION dollars being used to fund anti-AGW work. In post #4, I criticize the gross methodology error that was used to derive that figure, and ask GIGO if that criticism is valid. > > He answers, “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’s absolutely and utterly wrong. > > He could have said, “Well, AEI is not blameless: they do offer scientists and economists $10,000 each to write articles critical of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on climate change. But the criticism you raise is correct: it’s not a billion dollars.” > > Why can’t he simply do that? He acts like any concession of error on his part, no matter how tiny, will result in severe beatings and malnourishment. > > Seriously: I agree it’s a tangential point, but why is GIGO immune from having to admit that yes, he was wrong? Why can’t he type those words? I’ve done it. Many times, alas. Why can’t he? > > The fact that he can’t is what is causing me to continue to harp on the point. I’m not going to give me the chance to simply stop defending the point and act like his error never happened. > > So tell me, **Rhythmdvl** – are YOU a denier of the plain facts? Am I incorrect in anything I said above? Read again, you are dead wrong that I’m defending the OP’s paper, There was a quick follow up to that post that you continue to claim was not part of the reply. I continue to make the point that it is \*\*also \*\*naive and dishonest to claim that very little is being done by those think thanks and organizations. But it seems that you are stuck in making the point that you are not capable of paying attention, read **mhendo** ’s post again, only a deluded fellow would continue to claim that I never agreed with his assessment of the OP. ---
**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 25, 2013, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/94 "2013-12-25T02:09:48Z")
Well **Rhythmdvl** , I must admit that I should not have defended \*\*Bricker \*\*there. Doubling down so as to not ever apologize for a misunderstanding is bad enough, but clearly continuing to press for satisfaction (and on the pit) shows that you may be partially correct, he will find a nit so as to never deal with what others in the past found out. As I pointed before the research of the OP confirmed what others reported better in the past, the number mentioned was really unnecessary and misleading. Ignoring what was found before was also noticeable in the criticism that Bricker posted early, groups like the AEI are not doing this with mega millions, but they are not “just doing little”. American Enterprise Institute > **[Global Warming Skeptic Organizations (2013)](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/global-warming-skeptic-organizations)** > > A list of prominent global warming skeptic organizations, including examples of their disinformation efforts and funding sources from the fossil fuel industry. > [@](#): > > The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has routinely tried to undermine the credibility of climate science, despite at times affirming that the “weight of the evidence” justifies “prudent action” on climate change. [1] > > For years, AEI played a role in propagating misinformation about a manufactured controversy over emails stolen from climate scientists [2], with one AEI research fellow even claiming, “There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming.” [3] A resident scholar at AEI went so far as to state that the profession of climate scientist “threatens to overtake all” on the list of “most distrusted occupations.” [4] [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American\_Enterprise\_Institute](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute) > [@](#): > > In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, “to undermine a major climate change report” from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for “articles that emphasise the shortcomings” of the IPCC report, which “is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science.” AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer “to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere,” in a letter describing the IPCC as “resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent.” [7] > > The Guardian reported further that AEI “has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI’s board of trustees,” added The Guardian. [8] ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/95 "2013-12-25T02:44:27Z")
**GIGObuster** … you don’t know do you? To believe in something you cannot explain is as near to religious dogma as to make no difference. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > John Tyndall wrote in 1861 that slight changes in the amount of any of the radiatively active constituents of the atmosphere—water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone or hydrocarbons [deadpan stare] You don’t honestly believe that Oxygen and Nitrogen are radiatively inert at Earth’s blackbody radiation levels … do you … please … because it would really break my heart if you did believe this. What the hell are you taking about Biology interfering with thermodynamics? Look, it’s okay to not know, I certainly don’t. But if you prance around saying you do, makes you look ignorant. The fallback here is the advertisment on that SciAm link, I agree in every way that you’d be far far better off setting up business in Kentucky, because Silicon Valley will be underwater some day. I can see why Kentucky paid SciAm to post this article. Which brings me back to the OP … these screw-balls don’t have a billion bucks … commercial media has a billion bucks … dutifully distributed as dividends. I see absolutely nothing corrupt or deceitful in the practice [ka’ching]. ---
**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 25, 2013, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/96 "2013-12-25T03:10:57Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > **GIGObuster** … you don’t know do you? To believe in something you cannot explain is as near to religious dogma as to make no difference. And thanks for showing the stupid in you, I knew you would, that is like a Godwin, when contrarians reach for that explanation of this being a religion it only shows that you have no good arguments. The explanation was posted already, unless you can show that CO2 has amended its ways from the past, there is already data that shows what temperature it will be seen with an increase of CO2. What you deny also here is that experts do exist. NO ONE CAN KNOW EVERYTHING. However, one can see what academics and people that for a living look at pseudosience can make of this, and non-political organizations that look at this issue (can you believe it, they ask the scientists) like the Skeptic reports that indeed it is the denial of what CO2 does in the atmosphere what is the pseudoscience. [http://www.skeptic.com/reading\_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/](http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/) And as Scientific American reports, you are still wrong. I do not just believe on this just for shits and giggles I got involved on this by realizing how stupid the attracts on Michael Mann and others regarding the Hockey stick were. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > [deadpan stare] You don’t honestly believe that Oxygen and Nitrogen are radiatively inert at Earth’s blackbody radiation levels … do you … please … because it would really break my heart if you did believe this. What the hell are you taking about Biology interfering with thermodynamics? Look, it’s okay to not know, I certainly don’t. But if you prance around saying you do, makes you look ignorant. Do you honestly believe that your strawman will fly here? You are now a dunce X2 > [@watchwolf49](#): > > The fallback here is the advertisment on that SciAm link, I agree in every way that you’d be far far better off setting up business in Kentucky, because Silicon Valley will be underwater some day. I can see why Kentucky paid SciAm to post this article. Which brings me back to the OP … these screw-balls don’t have a billion bucks … commercial media has a billion bucks … dutifully distributed as dividends. I see absolutely nothing corrupt or deceitful in the practice [ka’ching]. And there is the derp X3 Scientists do report that the rise will happen but not soon enough for your Lex Luthor like dream. By the way, you are still not answering these items: Do you take back your say so that ‘this is not science’? Are you now aware of why your idea of assigning this to orbital forcing was not a good one? Do you really think it is ok to ignore history and repeat the mistakes of ignoring what was discussed in the past and how the real men of science did deal with the nits of the issue in the past? ---
**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 25, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/97 "2013-12-25T04:21:41Z")
And really, if you are correct then it follows that when things break the user of the thing that got broken should never be capable of consulting the proper experts, it seems to me that you are claiming that it is a mystery or that it is impossible for someone to check who has the most reliable information. You need to remind yourself that if you ever get really sick to not tell yourself that because you do not know the very specific way some stomach enzymes work that therefore you should assume that gastroenterologists are full of it and then it is the herbalist that should be consulted. So, Merry Christmas and watch out for that stuffing, it was not well cooked. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/98 "2013-12-25T04:42:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > … unless you can show that CO2 has amended its ways from the past, … Am I allowed to know beforehand what ways I am to amend? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Do you take back your say so that ‘this is not science’? I’ve called it religious dogma … ummm … no, that’s about it from me … perhaps this will help: “You are a stupid motherfucker” … I don’t know … you can’t explain it … what do you want me to think? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Are you now aware of why your idea of assigning this to orbital forcing was not a good one? **elucidator** says he has dis-proof in hand … I haven’t called him on it … it’s about the absorption spectrum I believe … I know it’s unscientific to admit error, but there you go, so sue me. Wierd, I actually agree with you on the OP … fucking wierd ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/99 "2013-12-25T04:52:44Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > **GIGObuster** … you don’t know do you? To believe in something you cannot explain is as near to religious dogma as to make no difference. This X 1 trillion. He doesn’t like hearing this and tries to pooh-pooh it, but it is the plain truth. He’s not stupid, I don’t think, deep down, but his religion just won’t allow him to question certain things. And he certainly can’t come out and directly answer a simple question posed to him, most recently by **Bricker**. And I think he thinks that if he cleanly and honorably admits error in this area he’ll go up in flames like a sun spot or that Al Gore will send some henchman to kill him. He blusters about on these boards as a “man of science”, yet all he does is try to discredit any cite that is not—guess what?—in _support_ of his position. :roll eyes: That’s his schtick. I suggest you don’t waste your time with him. Just look at the bullshit with Bricker. How many exchanges that had to go back and forth, how many times things had to be repeated and spoon-fed to him, and all for naught. For an even better example, go look at **FX’s** climate thread in the forum. He got his ass kicked like a rag doll by someone who knows about more about the science than he does and he ran away. No one, no thing, can penetrate the man’s faith. He is a true believer. He will not be dissuaded. The best reply to every post of his on this subject is, “Amen. Preach it brother!” ---
**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 25, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/100 "2013-12-25T05:01:52Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’ve called it religious dogma … ummm … no, that’s about it from me … perhaps this will help: “You are a stupid motherfucker” … I don’t know … you can’t explain it … what do you want me to think? Ah yes, just bullshit indeed from you. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/HhGuXCuDb1U/hqdefault.jpg "Tim Minchin's Storm the Animated Movie") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U) I do not care what you need to think, I post to inform others about what the science and the scientists are telling us. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > **elucidator** says he has dis-proof in hand … I haven’t called him on it … it’s about the absorption spectrum I believe … I know it’s unscientific to admit error, but there you go, so sue me. Wierd, I actually agree with you on the OP … fucking wierd What I do remember is that Plass and others found that it was until they came along that the absorption spectrum of CO2 was not as it was though to be to be. In any case the absorption spectrum is not the only reason why scientists report on why CO2 has a big role on climate: > **[AGU Day 2: The role of CO2 in the earth’s history | Serendipity](http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/12/agu-day-2-the-role-of-co2-in-the-earths-history/)** > > Yesterday afternoon, I managed to catch the Bjernes Lecture, which was given by Richard B. Alley: "The biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History". The room was absolutely packed - standing room only, I estimated at least 2,000... > [@](#): > > By way of introduction, [Richard Alley, paleo-geologist] pointed out how many brains are in the room, and how much good we’re all doing. Although he characterizes himself as not being an atmospheric scientist, except perhaps by default, but as he looks more and more at paleo-geology, it becomes clear how important CO2 is. He has found that CO2 makes a great organising principle for his class on the geology of climate change at Penn State, because CO2 keeps cropping up everywhere. So, he’s going to take us through the history to demonstrate this. His central argument is that we have plenty of evidence now (some of it very new) that CO2 dominates all other factors, hence “the biggest control knob” (later in the talk he extended the metaphor by referring to other forcings as fine tuning knobs). > > He also pointed out that, from looking at the blogosphere, it’s clear we live in interesting times, with plenty of people WILLING TO SHOUT and distort the science. For example, he’s sure some people will distort his talk title because, sure, there are other things that matter in climate change than CO2. As an amusing aside, he showed us a chunk of text from an email sent by an alumnus to the administrators at his university, on which he was copied, the gist of which is that Alley’s own research proves CO2 is not the cause of climate change, and hence he is misrepresenting the science and should be dealt with severely for crimes against the citizens of the world. To the amusement of the audience, he points out a fundamental error of logic in the first sentence of the email, to illustrate the level of ignorance about CO2 that we’re faced with. Think about this: an audience of 2,000 scientists, all of whom share his frustration at such ignorant rants. > > So the history: 4.6 billions years ago, the sun’s output was lower (approx 70% of today’s levels), often referred to as the faint young sun. But we know there was liquid water on earth back then, and the only thing that could explain that is a stronger greenhouse effect. Nothing else works – orbital differences, for example, weren’t big enough. The best explanation for the process so far is the Rock-Weathering Thermostat. CO2 builds up in the atmosphere over time from volcanic activity. As this CO2 warms the planet through the greenhouse effect, the warmer climate increases the chemical weathering of rock, which in turn removes carbon dioxide through the formation of calcium carbonate, that gets washed into the sea and eventually laid down as sediment. Turn up the temperature, and the sequestration of CO2 in the rocks goes faster. If the earth cools down this process slows, allowing CO2 to build up again in the atmosphere. This is process is probably what has kept the planet in the right range for liquid water and life for most of the last 4 billion years. > > But can we demonstrate it? The rock thermostat takes millions of years to work, because the principle mechanism is geological. One consequence is that the only way to get to a “snowball earth” (times in the Cryogenian period when the earth was covered in ice even down to the tropics) is that some other cause of change has to happen fast – faster than the rock-themostat effect. > > An obvious piece of evidence is in the rock layers. Glacial layers are always covered from above by carbonate rocks, showing that increased carbonation (as the earth warmed) follows periods of icing. This shows part of the mechanism. But to explore the process properly, we need good CO2 paleo-barometers. The gold standard is ice core record. So far the oldest ice core record is 800,000 years, although we only have one record this old. Several records go back 450,000 years, and there are many more shorter records. The younger samples all overlap, giving some confidence that they are correct. We also now know a lot about how to sort out ‘good’ ice core record from poor (contaminated) ones. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029.md?page=6)