# 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:** 8
**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, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/141 "2013-12-25T20:47:23Z")
And the point stands: Republican Dana Rohrabacher is a dishonest twit and the stink tanks have a lot to blame for that horror show coming from the Republican congressman. ---
**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, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/142 "2013-12-25T20:51:46Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > For the current warming? Yes. Very. There it is in black and white, somebody else said they had it in hand. But since I have your attention, do you know how carbon dioxide causes average global temperature to rise? ---
**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, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/143 "2013-12-25T21:02:17Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > There it is in black and white, somebody else said they had it in hand. But since I have your attention, do you know how carbon dioxide causes average global temperature to rise? Just as you took it with Plass and lost, you need to take it with Richard Alley about how irrelevant the orbital forcing is to the current warming. I can tell you that you will get the same result. ---
**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 25, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/144 "2013-12-25T21:11:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > In other words, to spread the word of Gore. šŸ˜‰ > > Amen. You can thank **Terr** and **Clothy** that youā€™re not more often named as ā€œDumbest Poster on SDMBā€. You stupid homophobic scientific illiterate. ---
**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, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/145 "2013-12-25T21:22:19Z")
**Budget Player Cadet** ā€¦ did you notice my Post #142 ā€¦ do you have dis-proof in hand concerning my Orbital Forcing hypothesis? ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/146 "2013-12-25T21:35:50Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > **Budget Player Cadet** ā€¦ did you notice my Post #142 ā€¦ do you have dis-proof in hand concerning my Orbital Forcing hypothesis? Once again, you are not paying attention, when one looks at the orbital forcing the temperatures should be going down now, **not up** in fact, they are more likely to be one factor of the current ā€œpauseā€ but as the pause of the 60ā€™s 70ā€™s showed, it was just wishful thinking. If the orbital forcing was the cause of the \*\*current \*\*warming the observed temperature now should be as the ones observed in the 1920ā€™s [http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles](http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles) > [@](#): > > The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle. > > This departure is so dramatic that it has instigated a new era. According to some studies, there is enough evidence to state that we have departed the Holocene and entered the Anthropocene. Simply put, based on the evidence, mankind has forced the Earth climate system to depart from itā€™s natural cycle forcing. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/147 "2013-12-25T22:28:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This sentence bears repeating for emphasis. > > There are many great things about this board and the community that comprises it. But one of its worse features is the unwillingness of its members to criticize errors made in service of the Correct Way of Thinking. > > People can obviously see what happened in this thread. The OP posted commentary about a study that made a glaring error. Undoubtedly its true that conservative groups fund anti-AGW activities, but not to the tune of one billion dollars ā€“ thatā€™s quite simply wrong. > > **GIGO** immediately posted in support of the OP. I highlighted the problem with the billion dollar claim and asked **GIGO** if that was a valid criticism ā€“ and he replied that he didnā€™t think it was. > > In other words, he made an error. > > Now, in the space of a few minutes, he obviously recognized he wasnā€™t on firm ground and modified his stance. > > But what he refuses to do is admit that for the space of a few moments, he was wrong. Heā€™d much rather simply pretend that he was correct all along, instead of being an adult and saying, ā€œYes, for a moment I didnā€™t see the problem; now I do.ā€ And heā€™s welcome to add any additional commentary, like ā€œAnd the main point is not ā€˜a billion,ā€™ but that this kind of dishonesty exists at all!ā€ Heā€™d be right, and I donā€™t contest that main point. > > But I also am unwilling to go along with this ā€œletā€™s all pretendā€ moment. > > And hereā€™s where the SDMB fails. > > Every single person reading this can see that what Iā€™ve said above is exactly whatā€™s happened. > > But because this is a criticism, however oblique, of a liberal pet cause, by a conservative, and a criticism of a liberal pet cause champion, they tell themselves that itā€™s not worth chiming in to agree. > > And that gives the lie to all the pious nonsense about dispassionate seeking of only the facts. The narrative above accurately states the facts, but it doesnā€™t help the side you favor. So you donā€™t jump in to deny itā€¦but you donā€™t jump in on my side either, because that would be helping a conservative at the expense of a liberal, and the scales have to be WAY more unbalanced before youā€™ll let yourself do that. > > Right, Gentle Reader? I would take it a step further ā€“ **Gigobuster** posts here because itā€™s only in places like this he can pretend he has some degree of intelligence and understanding. For all his blather, he has little or no actual understanding of global warming and heā€™s not very bright. But it doesnā€™t matter, because all he has to do is cut and paste liberally from [skepticalscience.com](http://skepticalscience.com) and his teammates will congratulate him on his brilliance. ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/148 "2013-12-25T22:35:08Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I would take it a step further ā€“ **Gigobuster** posts here because itā€™s only in places like this he can pretend he has some degree of intelligence and understanding. For all his blather, he has little or no actual understanding of global warming and heā€™s not very bright. But it doesnā€™t matter, because all he has to do is cut and paste liberally from [skepticalscience.com](http://skepticalscience.com) and his teammates will congratulate him on his brilliance. Oh, another follower of scientific racism joins the party, as I pointed before, conspiracy theorists do not stop at just one conspiracy. Of course as he did put almost half of the SDMB on ignore the brasil nut here has also missed that I only linked once to Skeptical Science, I guess he does think Scientific American is also part of the conspiracy. ---
**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, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/149 "2013-12-25T22:53:52Z")
As I have seen that many of the ones complaining here protest that they do follow the science, it is important to remember what the think thanks and other denier groups are doing to the Republican party: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/biUc0D6_UPA/maxresdefault.jpg "Climate Deniers in Congress") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biUc0D6_UPA) > [@](#): > > The science on climate change is clear, but too many members of Congress are in complete denial. Itā€™s time to call them out: So what will you do to tell them how wrong they are? ---
**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, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/150 "2013-12-25T23:13:25Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I would take it a step further ā€“ **Gigobuster** posts here because itā€™s only in places like this he can pretend he has some degree of intelligence and understanding. For all his blather, he has little or no actual understanding of global warming and heā€™s not very bright. But it doesnā€™t matter, because all he has to do is cut and paste liberally from [skepticalscience.com](http://skepticalscience.com) and his teammates will congratulate him on his brilliance. Now, all that doesnā€™t make him a bad person. I actually grateful he yarded up that Oregon State study confirming my hypothesis. He even explained thermal lag, thatā€™s how just shining more light on the Earth causes the temperatures to go up. Even though a stupid motherfucker, heā€™s a good person. He doesnā€™t understand that Iā€™m agreeing with him, which I find a bit strange. Heā€™s annoying too, like an ankle biter, watch: ---
**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, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/151 "2013-12-25T23:24:19Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Now, all that doesnā€™t make him a bad person. I actually grateful he yarded up that Oregon State study confirming my hypothesis. He even explained thermal lag, thatā€™s how just shining more light on the Earth causes the temperatures to go up. Even though a stupid motherfucker, heā€™s a good person. He doesnā€™t understand that Iā€™m agreeing with him, which I find a bit strange. > > Heā€™s annoying too, like an ankle biter, watch: So, then you agree on why orbital forcing is not able to explain what is going on with the current warming? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/152 "2013-12-25T23:40:17Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Now, all that doesnā€™t make him a bad person. I think it does, since he basically lies in order to pursue status. > [@](#): > > Heā€™s annoying too, like an ankle biter, watch: I pay very little attention to what he actually posts. Ever since years ago when he ignored a simple, reasonable question to let me understand his position. Probably he was too stupid to understand it and come up with a coherent answer. It seems that if he canā€™t find something by searching skepticalscience, heā€™s basically at a loss. ---
**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, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/153 "2013-12-25T23:49:28Z")
Good to see his addition there about Skeptical Science, as demonstrated it is not the only resource I use, but it is an important one as it was recommended by Barry Bickmore, Richard Alley, and many other conservative climate scientists. It is really more fun to see the brasil nut make evidence of his lies himself. He can not help but stamping ā€œwillful ignorantā€ in his forehead. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/154 "2013-12-26T01:58:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Good to see his addition there about Skeptical Science, as demonstrated it is not the only resource I use, but it is an important one as it was recommended by Barry Bickmore, Richard Alley, and many other conservative climate scientists. [Tell](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16954880&postcount=1160) it to [**FXMastermind**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16954883&postcount=1161). ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/155 "2013-12-26T04:47:32Z")
I am fully on board with AGW (or Climate Change or whatever you want to call it) but threads like this one make it easier for skeptics to remain skeptical. BG made the post because it confirmed his biases and didnā€™t spend an ounce of rationality when reading it. GIGO, I appreciate your zeal on the subject but defending the OP in any form decimates your credibility. I think the original study is stupidly flawed and borderline disengenuous. That doesnā€™t, however, make a dent in the science behind climate change. ---
**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 26, 2013, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/156 "2013-12-26T06:01:59Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I am fully on board with AGW (or Climate Change or whatever you want to call it) but threads like this one make it easier for skeptics to remain skeptical. BG made the post because it confirmed his biases and didnā€™t spend an ounce of rationality when reading it. GIGO, I appreciate your zeal on the subject but defending the OP in any form decimates your credibility. > > I think the original study is stupidly flawed and borderline disengenuous. That doesnā€™t, however, make a dent in the science behind climate change. As I said I agree with what \*\*mhendo \*\*posted, read it and you will see how off base your point here is, I do not agree with the main point made, there are no mega millions spent on this, but the amount that is closer to the truth is not chump change. What is happening is that there were other studies made in the past that showed how insidious the machine of denial is, reports from [Frontline](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/transcript-31/) and [Naomi Oreskes](http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/) were done even years before this latest report came, and it is a discussion that has to be had. You know, for that good old eternal vigilanceā€™s sake and all that jazz. It is specially Republicans that do claim to follow the science the ones that need to demand better as the manufactured opposition has the ears of their representatives: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/biUc0D6_UPA/maxresdefault.jpg "Climate Deniers in Congress") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biUc0D6_UPA) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/157 "2013-12-26T07:02:36Z")
You know what would be truly funny? If we got really excited about global warming, whole fucking world pouring brainpower, money and effort into solving the problem. We get lucky, a couple Einsteins and badda-bing, cheap and abundant green energy. Biggest boon to humankind in a thousand years, easy. Make eradicating malaria and smallpox look like chickenfeed. And then we find out we were wrong, there was no real threat from global warming, we just panicked and made a quantum leap into a bright future. That would be fucking hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![Trion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@Trion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trion)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/158 "2013-12-26T13:12:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You know what would be truly funny? > > If we got really excited about global warming, whole fucking world pouring brainpower, money and effort into solving the problem. We get lucky, a couple Einsteins and badda-bing, cheap and abundant green energy. Biggest boon to humankind in a thousand years, easy. Make eradicating malaria and smallpox look like chickenfeed. > > And then we find out we were wrong, there was no real threat from global warming, we just panicked and made a quantum leap into a bright future. > > That would be fucking hilarious. Oh 'luci. You know better than that. We canā€™t attain renewable fuel, cleaner air, scientific advancement, or any other benefit to humans for the purpose of benefiting humans. Itā€™s far more important that somebody at some point on the political spectrum be allowed to brag that they were right about something. I mean, there are elections to think about. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/159 "2013-12-26T15:53:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You know what would be truly funny? ā€¦ And then we find out we were wrong, there was no real threat from global warming Thatā€™s why Iā€™m laughing about this ā€¦ global warming and sea level rise is a well documented **fact** ā€¦ itā€™s been happening for the past 20,000 years and it will continue for the next 20,000 years. If there was a real threat, youā€™d think our kind would already be wiped out. The Canadian Arctic and Siberia will become unimaginably productive agricultural lands ā€¦ food to feed 20 billion people alone ā€¦ ending human starvation, poverty will only be taught in history classes, prosperity for all. [sigh] We should be belching carbon dioxide into the air as fast as we can. A billion bucks in the OP ā€¦ the FED has already lost that much, **just today**. Chump change ainā€™t gonna stop Noahā€™s Flood, move inland folks. ---
**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 26, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029/160 "2013-12-26T17:39:23Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Thatā€™s why Iā€™m laughing about this ā€¦ global warming and sea level rise is a well documented **fact** ā€¦ itā€™s been happening for the past 20,000 years and it will continue for the next 20,000 years. If there was a real threat, youā€™d think our kind would already be wiped out. That figures, you ignore that scientists already take that into account, the item you are an ignorant about is that the warming added is accelerating the rise. > **[Polar Melting Is Accelerating, So Is Sea-Level Rise](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/polar-melting-is-accelera/)** > > A report by 47 scientists using data from 10 satellites provides exquisitely detailed measurements of Greenland and Antarctica > [@](#): > > Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are shrinking three times faster than they were in the 1990s, and their contribution to global sea level rise is growing, according to a new study by many of the worldā€™s top ice experts. > > Melting of the two massive polar ice sheets raised the worldā€™s oceans 11.1 millimeters between 1992 and 2011, or just under half an inch, accounting for about one-fifth of the total sea level rise during that period. > > The study represents a major scientific advance that could help improve projections of future sea level rise, experts said. It reconciles earlier, seemingly contradictory analyses of polar ice sheet behavior, finding strong agreement in observations gathered by 10 satellites using three different measurement methods. > > ā€œOur new estimates of ice sheet losses are the most reliable to date,ā€ said lead author Andrew Shepherd, a professor of Earth observation at the University of Leeds. ā€œThey also end 20 years of uncertainty concerning changes in the mass of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and theyā€™re intended to become the benchmark data set for climate scientists to use from now on.ā€ > [@watchwolf49](#): > > The Canadian Arctic and Siberia will become unimaginably productive agricultural lands ā€¦ food to feed 20 billion people alone ā€¦ ending human starvation, poverty will only be taught in history classes, prosperity for all. [sigh] We should be belching carbon dioxide into the air as fast as we can. Why, we should be able to use models to find out when we can expect that uh? Too bad that in the pandemic of contradictions that is so typical of the ones that are telling you dumb things like that one is that the tools to predict when Siberia and other locations will be productive. It will depend on accepting the validity of the tools the climate scientists are using. Memo to you: Contrarians even deny that computer models are useful, and that contradiction does not stop many think thanks and groups from using that ā€œpointā€. The reality here is you also ignore history and sociology to miss the most likely outcome: Many nations will not be able to overcome their basic assholery (specially Russia and here Iā€™m talking about preventing immigration from climate refugees) and even if we avoid the bottleneck of the loopy weather until we reach a new normal with Siberia as a bread basket there will be many years were we will have to wait to figure out what will be the new normal. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > A billion bucks in the OP ā€¦ the FED has already lost that much, **just today**. Chump change ainā€™t gonna stop Noahā€™s Flood, move inland folks. How easy is to ignore the cost of the choice of not doing a concerted effort. > **[Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/)** > > The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. At a time when we need to clarify public confusions about the science and economics of climate change, skeptics have muddied the waters. I will describe... > [@](#): > > This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs. > > This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. \*\*My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to todayā€™s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.\*\*10 > > My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities. > > One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed. Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification. Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policyā€”and one starting sooner rather than laterā€”to slow climate change. So no, there is indeed a mess of items were the experts (and I do base my educated opinion on them) do not agree with you, stop lying to yourself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/677029.md?page=9)