# Conservatism, evolution, global warming, and the truth. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326 "2010-01-09T21:04:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [January 11, 2010, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/61 "2010-01-11T03:04:13Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m unsure how this relates to what you quoted from me or the response from The Gonz I was responding too. It doesn’t SEEM to have anything to do with what I was saying or what gonzo was stating. > > -XT To put it in other words, what was different in the past that tenure or grants did \*\*not \*\*influence the scientists up to the 40’s? A theory that supposes that the scientists of today are influenced by the money gained by tenure or grants regarding this subject has to explain what changed from the 50’s to today. Based on history, I’m inclined to think that it was the evidence that convinced them, not the profits that they could get from AGW. (There are still more profits to be gained IMHO by becoming a speaker in denier circuits) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/62 "2010-01-11T03:10:06Z")
Again, that’s not the question I was responding too. Here is what The Gonz asked: [QUOTE=gonzomax] What is the payoff for a scientist to warn the world that we are causing damage, if we are not? How does a university scientist who releases a study that indicates there is global warming profit from saying it? [/QUOTE] So…POSSIBLE payoffs and POSSIBLE profit (which is what he was asking for) are what I said. No, it’s not markedly different than it was in the past, though a lot more grant money is riding on things like this today than it was in the 40’s. Do you deny this? That careers and funding, not to mention prestige, ride on the type of research being done? Do you suppose that the same grant money, prestige and tenure is available for, say, flatworm research as that available for climate research? You seem to be trying to pick a fight with me on this, when I’m basically in agreement with you and freely acknowledge that you know more on this subject than I do. I was merely responding to gonzo’s comic book assertions. -XT ---
**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:** [January 11, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/63 "2010-01-11T03:18:36Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > So…POSSIBLE payoffs and POSSIBLE profit (which is what he was asking for) are what I said. No, it’s not markedly different than it was in the past, though a lot more grant money is riding on things like this today than it was in the 40’s. Do you deny this? That careers and funding, not to mention prestige, ride on the type of research being done? Do you suppose that the same grant money, prestige and tenure is available for, say, flatworm research as that available for climate research? Well, that is no proof. Of course, I can grant here that it is possible, but IMHO unlikely based on history. > [@xtisme](#): > > You seem to be trying to pick a fight with me on this, when I’m basically in agreement with you and freely acknowledge that you know more on this subject than I do. I was merely responding to gonzo’s comic book assertions. > > -XT On that last item, I can agree. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/64 "2010-01-11T03:25:34Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Of course, I can grant here that it is possible, but IMHO unlikely based on history. [/QUOTE] Either we are talking past each other or I’m simply not tracking well tonight. What do you think is unlikely based on history exactly? That universities get grant money and funding based on research?? Of COURSE they do…and always have. So, you must be talking about something else. Just to clarify my own perhaps murky position here, I’m not denying that there is more money to be made on the private side of research than on the university side. What I’m saying is that those ARE real, tangible motivations that DO influence professors, scientists and researchers…regardless of whether we are talking about climate studies or the mating habits of left left handed dwarf transsexual hermaphrodites. Tenure is important. Funding is important. Grant money is important. Prestige is important. All are real world motivations…even for climate scientists embarked on a noble quest to save the world. -XT ---
**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:** [January 11, 2010, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/65 "2010-01-11T03:52:16Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Either we are talking past each other or I’m simply not tracking well tonight. What do you think is unlikely based on history exactly? Well, take the Callendar case for example. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) > [@](#): > > Yet the theory that atmospheric CO2 variations could change the climate was never altogether forgotten. An idea so simple on the face of it, an idea advanced (however briefly) by outstanding figures like Arrhenius and Chamberlin, had to be mentioned in textbooks and review articles if only to refute it. Arrhenius’s outmoded hypothesis persisted in a ghostly afterlife. > It found a lone advocate. In 1938 an English engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar, tried to revive the old idea. An expert on steam technology, Callendar apparently took up meteorology as a hobby to fill his spare time.(14) Many people, looking at weather stories from the past, had been saying that a warming trend was underway. When Callendar compiled measurements of temperatures from the 19th century on, he found they were right. He went on to dig up and evaluate old measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. He concluded that over the past hundred years the concentration of the gas had increased by about 10%. This rise, Callendar asserted, could explain the observed warming. For he understood (perhaps from Hulburt’s calculation) that even if the CO2 in the atmosphere did already absorb all the heat radiation passing through, adding more gas would change the height in the atmosphere where the absorption took place. That, he calculated, would make for warming. Ok, that got him fame, glory or money? Nope. > [@](#): > > Callendar’s publications attracted some attention, and climatology textbooks of the 1940s and 1950s routinely included a brief reference to his studies. But most meteorologists gave Callendar’s idea scant credence. While it is true that current researchers make more money, it is not likely to be just for climate research. As many forget, climate science did not have many specialists, researchers came from other fields. > [@](#): > > Digital computers were now at hand for such calculations. The theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan decided it was worth taking some time away from what seemed like more important matters to grind through extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere, adding more CO2 must change the balance of radiation.(25) > > But would adding carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the air significantly change the surface temperature? Only detailed computations, point by point across the infrared spectrum and layer by layer down through the atmosphere, could answer that question. By 1956, such computations could be carried out thanks to the increasing power of digital computers. The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere (he too did it out of sheer curiosity, as a diversion from his regular work making calculations for weapon engineers). He nailed down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise. Assuming that emissions would continue at the current rate, he expected that human activity would raise the average global temperature “at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century.”(26) > > The computation, like Callendar’s, paid no attention to possible changes in water vapor and clouds, and overall was too crude to convince scientists. “It is almost certain,” one authority scolded, “that these figures will be subject to many strong revisions.”(27) Yet Plass had proved one central point: it was a mistake to dismiss the greenhouse effect with spectroscopic arguments. He warned that climate change could be “a serious problem to future generations” — although not for several centuries. Following the usual pattern, Plass was mainly interested in the way variations in CO2 might solve the mystery of the ice ages. “If at the end of this century the average temperature has continued to rise,” he wrote, then it would be “firmly established” that CO2 could cause climate change.(28) Now, Plass was a physicist, in 1955 Plass **left his academic position**. > **[Gilbert Plass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Plass)** > > Gilbert Norman Plass (March 22, 1920 – March 1, 2004) was a Canadian physicist who in the 1950s made predictions about the increase in global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the 20th century and its effect on the average temperature of the planet that closely match measurements reported half a century later. > Plass worked most of his life as a physicist in the United States. He graduated from Harvard University in 1941 and earned a PhD in physics from Princeton University in 1947. He... > [@](#): > > he held a job for a year as a staff scientist with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. He then joined the advanced research staff at the Aeronutronic division of the Ford Motor Company. In 1960, he became manager of the research lab at Ford’s theoretical physics department and a consulting editor of the journal Infrared Physics. So, the one that proposed mechanisms for AGW was not being funded to find what he did, and Plass found the most convincing evidence by moonlighting outside academia. Now, it seems to me that back on the 60’s many would had gained glory by finding evidence that Plass was wrong, as that was the consensus then. But I guess that most current researchers will have to just conform themselves on confirming the research. BTW, I do remember also that most satellites send recently to investigate climate were based on the best criticisms by the skeptics, probes were sent up to investigate clouds, feedbacks and other items that could undermine the AGW theories, they ended up bringing more evidence that confirmed the previous research. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/66 "2010-01-11T04:02:45Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Look, some conservatives believe in God; some don’t. Which means that some conservatives take the liberal position on some issues, which is to be expected. But the conservative position on the existence of God is obviously yes. That’s how most of us were brought up and the position taken by the culture that has dominated for millenia. > [@](#): > > Likewise, some conservatives believe in global warming; some don’t; so what? They can believe as they wish, and in my view neither position deserves a lambasting from FOX News. But there are countless positions that do qualify for a lambasting on FOX, including–to calibrate our lambaste-o-meter–that GW is happening and it’s human caused. This the Al Gore position and these “carbon-heads” get plenty of lambasting from the “cyclers”, even though they both agree that the “coolers” are wrong and that the threat of disaster is real. But the cyclers and the coolers paper over their ratehr sharp differences and gang up on the carbon-heads. It doesn’t matter to the coolers why they’re wrong, just so long as they get plenty of lambasting. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/67 "2010-01-11T04:48:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As the video I last linked show, scientists are expecting more warming in the next decade. And if that doesn’t happen – if the next decade is rather like this past one – then can we finally stop worrying about global warming and address global cooling? One decade of cooling-off since 1998 isn’t enough; I _ **get** _ that; will _ **two** _ suffice? [QUOTE=GIGObuster] Thank you for demonstrating to all that you did not check the citations on the explanation of the decadal variations. [/QUOTE] That’s your claim, but it doesn’t happen to be true. [QUOTE=sqweels] But there are countless positions that do qualify for a lambasting on FOX, including–to calibrate our lambaste-o-meter–that GW is happening and it’s human caused. This the Al Gore position and these “carbon-heads” get plenty of lambasting [/QUOTE] Ah, I see the problem. No, what gets a deserved lambasting from FOX isn’t the mere belief in GW. The problem is when “carbon-heads” start calling for us to _ **do** _ something about the alleged threat of GW, which sometimes involves Very Bad Ideas. [QUOTE=Zephyurs] The Other Waldo Pepper, you do realize that the last decade was on average the hottest on record, right? Temperatures haven’t been “falling short” this decade. [/QUOTE] Well, (a) they _ **have** _ been “falling short” of the 1998 mark; as per GIGObuster’s helpful quote for evaluating 1999 and 2000 and 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006 and 2007 and 2008 and 2009, we can only say that “2005 was almost as warm as 1998.” More to the point, (b) I now have it on good authority that a single decade, like a single year, isn’t sufficient evidence; perhaps a second decade of sub-1998 temperatures will somehow both falsify global warming despite _ **also** _ ranking as a hot decade. I now look forward to seeing how this decade’s temperatures play out. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2010, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/68 "2010-01-11T05:04:53Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And if that doesn’t happen – if the next decade is rather like this past one – then can we finally stop worrying about global warming and address global cooling? One decade of cooling-off since 1998 isn’t enough; I _ **get** _ that; will _ **two** _ suffice? > > > [@](#): > > > > Thank you for demonstrating to all that you did not check the citations on the explanation of the decadal variations. > > That’s your claim, but it doesn’t happen to be true. Sorry, but clearly the cite refers to less than 20 years, so everyone that \*\*checked \*\*the cite would already had figured the answer. [http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/#more-2124](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/#more-2124) > [@](#): > > Therefore we need at least 14 years of GISS data (from 1996 to the present) to draw a confident conclusion about the most recent trend. In fact, since we have additional unaccounted-for uncertainty (such as the parameter estimates for our ARMA(1,1) model), we actually need a bit more. Let’s say that less than 15 years of data allows no confident conclusion about whether the trend in GISS data is warming or cooling. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/69 "2010-01-11T05:18:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sorry, but clearly the cite refers to less than 20 years, so everyone that \*\*checked \*\*the cite would already had figured the answer Good heavens, man, I’ve _ **already** _ copy-and-pasted your other nested quote about “the existence of natural variability means that we could in theory wait a long time (~17 years) before setting a new temperature record.” I’d already used _ **that** _ less-than-20-years figure, carrying the one and everything, to figure on seeing the prediction get falsified in the fullness of time come 2015 – which _ **already** _ fits the quote claiming “that less than 15 years of data allows no confident conclusion about whether the trend in GISS data is warming or cooling.” Since you’ve already seen me sign on for your “long time (~17 years)” quote – and already _ **quoted** _ me about it, even – why figure you’re doing new work by requesting an amount over and above “less than 15 years”? I “already had figured the answer” back on page one. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2010, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/70 "2010-01-11T05:27:31Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I “already had figured the answer” back on page one. Just goes to show that indeed you are debating just nitpicks. Of course I did quote again even if it was unlikely that you miss it, but there you were asking for that again. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/71 "2010-01-11T05:42:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Just goes to show that indeed you are debating just nitpicks. Well, that’s a hard charge to rebut; obviously I feel you’re the one making nitpicks, but with the crucial difference that they’re _ **incorrect** _ nitpicks. > [@](#): > > Of course I did quote again because it was very unlikely that you miss it, but there you were asking for that again. You’re missing the point. Your claim was that (a) I hadn’t checked the citations, since (b) I didn’t figure the answer would fall in the period of more than fifteen, but less than twenty, years. I replied by pointing out that I’d already signed on for the “long time (~17 years)” period after copy-and-pasting it from your own post – which shows that the second part is as false as the first. Why you “did quote again” is irrelevant. Whether it “was very unlikely” is irrelevant. What you think I was “asking for” is irrelevant. You made an incorrect claim, backed it up with another incorrect claim, and then accused me of nitpicking when pointing out that your claims are incorrect. Again, _ **you’re** _ the one bringing up quotes that rule out “less than fifteen years” while okaying “less than 20 years” to claim I would’ve figured the answer in that range; how can it be nitpicking to address that claim by showing I figured the answer in _ **exactly** _ that range? ---
**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:** [January 11, 2010, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/72 "2010-01-11T05:46:28Z")
Meh, How is that not just debating nits? BTW the 17 year one says “could” and the 15 years one is also set as probable. What is certain is that you are not taking any answer quietly, and it is not going to demonstrate anything for your side, besides you are just showing that you keep dwelling on nits and not dealing on the facts that scientists explained the variability issue. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/73 "2010-01-11T05:55:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, How is that not just debating nits? From my perspective, you’re making incorrect statements. Should I let them pass, or address them? > [@](#): > > BTW the 17 year one says “could” and the 15 years one is also set as probable. What is certain is that you are not taking any answer quietly, and it is not going to demonstrate anything for your side. Go back to the last post on page one: I took the answer quietly, stated that I’d see whether it pans out in 2015, mentioned that I had no objection to something, and capped it by reiterating – in response to sqweels – that no lambasting is deserved for people who believe that global warming is happening, end of post. I’d pretty well said my piece, at that point. And then you made an incorrect statement in the next post, and so I then posted a reply: “I made no such claim. What an extraordinary claim you’re now making.” I wrapped up the rest of that post by agreeing with a statement you’d made before hailing yet another statement you’d made as “outstanding” and stating that “I respect the heck out of that approach in general and the quote in particular.” All apologies, but I can’t take answers much better than that. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/74 "2010-01-11T06:09:38Z")
Isn’t this entire thread off-topic? The OP wanted to know the view of the country’s conservatives vis-a-vis global warming, intelligent design and the Young Earth model. He didn’t ask people to argue with the responses. This happens all too frequently around here - someone will ask what the country’s conservatives think about something and then everyone starts arguing with the answers, as though their anger and arguments aimed at SDMB conservatives are going to make the slightest difference in what the country’s millions of conservatives think. If you want to harp about how stoopit the country’s conservatives are, that’s fine; start a thread and do that (or join in the dozen or so already in progress). But I think it’s ultimately self-defeating in terms of gaining any kind of insight to ask people to explain why the nation’s conservatives think the way they do on certain issues and then attack the respondents when they attempt to give an answer. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2010, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/75 "2010-01-11T06:16:43Z")
Oh, well, suffice to say that there were also citations to show that AGW already had to deal with falsification. Not dealing with those and only keeping up with this bit shows volumes about your debating “tactics” \*\*The Other Waldo Pepper \*\* > [@Ale](#): > > I think of that sort of denial as someone on the beach measuring the rising tide by looking how far up the shore the waves lap. Some go up further up and some less, by starting from an exceptionally big wave the denier would say that the tide is not rising since no wave since then has reached further inland. And doing nothing else, it seems. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2010, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/76 "2010-01-11T06:24:34Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Isn’t this entire thread off-topic? The OP wanted to know the view of the country’s conservatives vis-a-vis global warming, intelligent design and the Young Earth model. He didn’t ask people to argue with the responses. > > This happens all too frequently around here - someone will ask what the country’s conservatives think about something and then everyone starts arguing with the answers, as though their anger and arguments aimed at SDMB conservatives are going to make the slightest difference in what the country’s millions of conservatives think. As I mentioned before, It is not very important to convince an opponent, that is really hard; but an opponent ignoring pointed replies and evidence that he/she is wrong shows others how unreliable that opponent can be. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > If you want to harp about how stoopit the country’s conservatives are, that’s fine; start a thread and do that (or join in the dozen or so already in progress). But I think it’s ultimately self-defeating in terms of gaining any kind of insight to ask people to explain why the nation’s conservatives think the way they do on certain issues and then attack the respondents when they attempt to give an answer. But the title says also “ **and the truth** ” Also, not only extreme conservatives are answering. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/77 "2010-01-11T06:31:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [QUOTE=Ale] > I think of that sort of denial as someone on the beach measuring the rising tide by looking how far up the shore the waves lap. Some go up further up and some less, by starting from an exceptionally big wave the denier would say that the tide is not rising since no wave since then has reached further inland. And doing nothing else, it seems. [/QUOTE] No, something else – addressing that head-on – is rather the point. Maybe it is merely like unto the tide going out. Then again, maybe it’s the start of a bona fide cooling trend. The key is _ **time:** _ there’s some amount of time that folks on your side will grant satisfy falsification purposes, and I’m _ **aforementionedly** _ happy to sign on for “~17 years” sure as I’m aforementionedly happy to rule out “less than fifteen years” stuff while staying within the “less than 20 years” framework. And _ **that’s** _ why it’s not about mere nitpickery; rather than “doing nothing else”, I want your side’s falsification period spelled out so that we can establish how long we need to wait for another high-water mark before noting that this sure isn’t like a tide. I want that duration spelled out so I can sign on for it. I believe you’ve been wrong repeatedly and demonstrably in this thread; I’ve brought it to your attention, with evidence – and you’ve called it nitpicking rather than admit any mistake. You’ve now added something I find quite useful: > [@](#): > > an opponent ignoring pointed replies and evidence that he/she is wrong shows others how unreliable that opponent can be. I find that quote endlessly fascinating. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/78 "2010-01-11T06:47:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As I mentioned before, It is not very important to convince an opponent, that is really hard; but an opponent ignoring pointed replies and evidence that he/she is wrong shows others how unreliable that opponent can be. My point is that there should be no opponents. The OP simply asked for insights into conservative thought on these three issues; he didn’t ask for those insights to be attacked or debated. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2010, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/79 "2010-01-11T06:54:55Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > So is the Biblical Young Earth model the settled, conservative view on the issue and those who believe in other models are deviating form the party line? Or is there any kind of consensus on a rough sequence of events that encompasses a broader but still conservative outlook? As for that item: > **[Young Earth creationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism)** > > Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism that holds as a central tenet that the Earth and its lifeforms were created by supernatural acts of the Abrahamic God between about 10,000 and 6,000 years ago, directly contradicting established scientific data that puts the age of Earth around 4.54 billion years. Events such as Noah’s Flood are described as explaining much of the geological and fossil record. In its most widespread version, YEC is based on a religious belief in t This is i... > [@](#): > > As of 2008 a Gallup poll indicated that 36% of US adults agreed with the statement “human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.”, 14% believed that “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.” and 44% of US adults agreed with the statement “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”[29] ---
**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:** [January 11, 2010, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326/80 "2010-01-11T06:57:24Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > My point is that there should be no opponents. The OP simply asked for insights into conservative thought on these three issues; he didn’t ask for those insights to be attacked or debated. Well, then this should have been in the IMHO forum. This is still GD. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatism-evolution-global-warming-and-the-truth/524326.md?page=5)