Please describe the source of these trillions of dollars and where it goes.
Old card to play in discussions like this one.
That and the mention of Obama demonstrates that the latest studies on the matter are correct, the contrarians that are left are contrarians because of politics and echo chambers that override any evidence and they discourage any solutions.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/27/3662739/climate-change-echo-chambers/
I ask you: Why the anger at Obama? You don’t answer but switch to Al Gore. Let me guess: Is it because they’re both libtards?
And then you trot out the “1 ppm is very tiny” canard. That’s a give-away that you’re totally ignorant about the science. The temperature-forcing effect of a little CO2 is NOT in dispute; the more intelligent deniers base their case on secondary effects.
And your training in science is?
You seem to be unaware that there are many branches of science, and expertise in one says nothing about expertise in others. You appear not to know what you don’t know. Saying a physicist or a computer scientist like me isn’t qualified to talk about climate science doesn’t mean that the only ones left are laymen. Let’s listen to the climate scientists, who have the background.
By the way, your funding numbers add up to a bit over $2 billion, a far cry from trillions, and chicken feed for the size of this problem.
May I ask how you found this forum? I ask because one way people find it is by searching for information on obscure facts. A look around at the header will show that the forum takes pride in “fighting ignorance”. In short, this forum is filled to the brim with the sort of people you might characterize as “condescending smartasses who know it all” by design. We like it.
Well, when one of us is the OP, we do. In this case, you started the thread(s), so it’s your turn. That’s how forums work.
No, I’m sorry, but if you’re going to come in here and throw PRATT against the walls hoping something will stick, be completely ignorant of the science, and refuse to actually make or address meaningful points (instead opting to appeal to individual political figures who have little to do with the science, or throwing out grand conspiracy theories involving essentially the entire scientific world that don’t make any sense), you kinda lose the right to accuse someone else of being “condescending”.
Case in point:
You have no idea what you’re talking about. You have not examined the science at all! If you had, you would know that water vapor in the atmosphere is primarily a function of temperature, and that atmospheric forcing makes that 1ppm have a huge impact. But you don’t know what you’re talking about, so you make these easily-refuted, obviously bogus points.
Please, if you come back, bring back an argument that isn’t trivially debunked by 10 seconds on Skeptical Science.
Well, that isn’t the definition of scientist, so he’s onto a loser there from the start.
Doesn’t mention revulsion.
If you want a sensible answer you’ll have to go by numbers, not by feelings.
Fossil fuels are limited so without electric cars you’re going there anyway, and fairly soon.
Oh god climategate. All that anal wind over the use of the word “trick” 
I think the trick is not to use the word trick because it’s too tricky for people who haven’t got the trick of how to use the word ‘trick’.
I’ve spoken to scientists who think the IPCC consensus is a politically driven approximation, somewhat, because things are actually worse than the consensus says.
And, indeed, there are climatic effects that are ahead of any modeled schedule the IPCC has come up with. Arctic ice loss, for a start. Well ahead of schedule.
Yawn…got any vaguely sciency arguments that can’t be refuted by links to “How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic”?
Is he an engine driver?*
If only winning a Nobel was a guarantee that you know what you’re talking about, especially when it comes to other disciplines. But that’s not the case.
*obscure The Who reference.
The first part of this quote is extremely accurate, however, I wouldn’t exactly characterize those who wish to argue with a Scandinavian creature on a message board as dangerous.
Relating the term in question to Scandinavian folklore should be considered a folk etymology. 
Well, we keep trying to recruit Chuck Norris to the Dope . . .
Mr. Dibble, why don’t you think for yourself instead of reading the propaganda written by those with billion dollar axes to grind?
Do you have anything to say demonstrating that you personally understand the issues?
Tell me what you know about water, for starters. Then discuss the range of pKa values, and why? What is the space of hemoglobin?
Talk “sciency” yourself instead of simply pretending to be so profoundly erudite. Let’s see it.
Now this is a funny thing to say.
Let’s pretend you’re right. Global warming is a hoax concocted by scientists and Al Gore. We’re all gullible for falling for it. But dangerously gullible?
So we believe that the globe is warming and want to cut down our use of finite sources of fossil fuels. We want to move towards green energy like solar and wind. We want to reduce pollution, clean the air, clean water. That’s dangerous? Even if we’re wrong, what we end up with is less dependence on Middle Eastern oil, cleaner air and water, cheaper and more renewable sources of energy. You think that’s dangerous?
On the other hand, lets come back to reality for a second and realize global warming is happening, its real, and its going to have devastating effects on our planet. If we’re right, oceans will rise, species will go extinct, we’ll have more extreme weather, droughts, floods, etc. all for the sake of enriching a handful of oil executives, Middle Eastern monarchs, and the politicians they’ve bought off. That’s dangerous, it will kill people and destroy cities and make species go extinct.
Watch your mouth on how you describe global warming. There is no comparison here. Even if global warming is not real, the steps taken to reduce it will be a net benefit to society. The only thing your side can cause is harm
You first.
Yes, but if what the OP is claiming is true, then the global warming hoax is leading to scientists getting paid, when that money instead could be directed to oil company executives. What a travesty!