# What stupid shit do you have to believe to be a conservative today? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 10, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660 "2010-04-10T19:22:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/121 "2010-04-12T20:54:22Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You have to believe that the Free Market works on Darwinistic principles that promotes economic well-being by eliminating the weak and inefficient. > > That Big Government exists as a discrete entity, and that it has certain invariant characteristics, and that one of those is that it always interferes with the Darwinistic function of the Free Market > > You don’t believe in Darwin. This is one of my best ‘gotcha moments’ with my companies extremely conservative accountant. She is well known in the company for broadcasting her conservatism. She was going on almost exactly as elucidator above. After she went on for awhile I asked her if she believed in evolution. NO WAY! - she said…then the gotcha 🙂 {If Darwinism/evolution/survival of the fittest is wrong…why would it apply to the market/economy?} ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/122 "2010-04-12T23:11:34Z")
Obamacare is not universal single payer health care. It is like most state’s auto insurance programs: it requires people to get insurance and helps provide financing to only some of those who cannot finance it themselves. It requires insurers to accept everyone, not rescind and not have a lifetime cap (the equivalent of totaling out a car). It is hardly radical, it does qualify as incremental and a victory for individuals and small businesses. Under the common definition of radical, having what most wealthy democratic countries have, single payer universal, would still not qualify as radical. Now as far as adding something snide to the Pitting of what is required to believe to be a modern conservative, there is no body that decides such a thing, other than perhaps Fox News deciding who is or is not a RINO. However, it requires intellectual flexibility to be a conservative: a conservative must be able to change his or her mind entirely on what is or is not a conservative policy based on who is controlling government (the only real modern conservative principle). When Republicans proposed their health care plan in 1993, they later should deride versions that highly similar if they are proposed by a Mormon as in Romneycare or a Democrat as in Obamacare. They support unappealable death panels of private insurers, but object to the imaginary death panels of Obamacare. They oppose deficits when Democrats are in power, but spend wildly when Republicans are in power because “deficits don’t matter” according to them. They say anyone who is has previously passed federal appointment is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court when they are nominating from the White House, but they might filibuster based on political “mainstream” views (i.e. agreeing with them) when the other party is nominating. They enter into a “gang of 14” arrangement to end judicial filibusters when they are nominating, it remains to be seen if the remaining members will honor that agreement. I think Snowe and Collins both were members of that arrangement. In short, believing six different impossible things before breakfast is the standard Republican requirement, as long as it is blocking all of government’s business. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/123 "2010-04-13T00:23:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So does it bother you that you have an ignorant and blindly stupid view of global warming? Nope. I feel pretty validated. Namecalling and bully tactics are what I expect in response from liberals who, as I’ve already mentioned, we feel are pretty much full of shit in the way they espouse their issues. So, your response was expected. > [@](#): > > Does it bother you that you are so uninformed that you don’t know that global cooling wasn’t the scientific consensus? Since I already knew that… no, and since that’s a classical fallacy, the appeal to authority, which is another example of bullshit, still no. I feel doubly validated though. > [@](#): > > Does it bother you that you stupidly believe absolute bullshit spoon fed to you (by people who have a monetary stake in the game), about how much and the effect of the carbon we pump into the atmosphere? I think you’re confused here. That’s **you** who believe the spoonfed bullshit by people who have a monetary stake (Al Gore sold carbon offsets, don’t you know?) Me? I’m not sure how much we put out or what the effect will be, so I’m simply skeptical about the whole thing. > [@](#): > > Or are you just a fucking moron? No, but I was fucking a moron… last night… your mom… the Pele of anal. > [@](#): > > Conservatives believe bullshit that there is no evidence for. I think that’s the crux of what we’ve learned here. You should read what I wrote a little more carefully. It’s not what I believe which is at issue, it’s simply that I think you are full of shit, employ fallacies, bully tactics and are unworthy of trust. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/124 "2010-04-13T00:34:30Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Nope. I feel pretty validated. Namecalling and bully tactics are what I expect in response from liberals who, as I’ve already mentioned, we feel are pretty much full of shit in the way they espouse their issues. So, your response was expected. I’m not a bully. You’re an idiot. > [@](#): > > Since I already knew that… no, and since that’s a classical fallacy, the appeal to authority, which is another example of bullshit, still no. I feel doubly validated though. An appeal to authority is how you have to present scientific understanding that are too complex for laypersons to grasp. Like climate science, nuclear physics, genetic recombination or whatever. You are doubting hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed scientists based on a bullshit hunch. > [@](#): > > I think you’re confused here. That’s **you** who believe the spoonfed bullshit by people who have a monetary stake (Al Gore sold carbon offsets, don’t you know?) Bullshit. I am taking at face value the vast majority of climate scientists. You are believing 20 or so guys who work for Exxon. > [@](#): > > Me? I’m not sure how much we put out or what the effect will be, so I’m simply skeptical about the whole thing. You being skeptical is meaningless. You don’t have the understanding (and neither do I for that matter) to make a judgement. Science isn’t some do-it-yourself game. You go with the authorities, just like when you take medicine, trust a bridge to hold your car or whatever. > [@](#): > > No, but I was fucking a moron… last night… your mom… the Pele of anal. This morning she had little good to say about your performance. ☹ > [@](#): > > You should read what I wrote a little more carefully. It’s not what I believe which is at issue, it’s simply that I think you are full of shit, employ fallacies, bully tactics and are unworthy of trust. And I think you’re a loud, blustery coward who can’t think for himself. Does it really matter what we think of each other? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/125 "2010-04-13T01:01:58Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > An appeal to authority is how you have to present scientific understanding that are too complex for laypersons to grasp. Like climate science, nuclear physics, genetic recombination or whatever. No. That’s how **you** do it. That’s one of the reasons I don’t trust you on the topic. > [@](#): > > You are doubting hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed scientists based on a bullshit hunch. Hundreds of thousands? We can add exaggeration to the list of reasons not to trust what you say. But again, you did not read carefully what I said. I have no doubt that our species is effecting the climate, so I guess you can add me to the consensus. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. I am taking at face value the vast majority of climate scientists. You are believing 20 or so guys who work for Exxon. Not really. I’m actually choosing to reserve judgement and think for myself. > [@](#): > > You being skeptical is meaningless. You don’t have the understanding (and neither do I for that matter) to make a judgement. Science isn’t some do-it-yourself game. You go with the authorities, just like when you take medicine, trust a bridge to hold your car or whatever. Just because it’s beyond you to evaluate the evidence is hardly an argument that it’s beyond me. > [@](#): > > This morning she had little good to say about your performance. ☹ I’m flattered that she even remembered me out of so many. > [@](#): > > And I think you’re a loud, blustery coward who can’t think for himself. Does it really matter what we think of each other? What you think really doesn’t matter, does it? You started this thread to ask what conservatives think, remember? You asked that we limit the discussion to that topic, yes? ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/126 "2010-04-13T01:11:39Z")
[What stupid shit, you ask?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12333673&postcount=1) ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/127 "2010-04-13T01:12:58Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > No. That’s how **you** do it. That’s one of the reasons I don’t trust you on the topic. I’m not asking you to trust me. I’m asking why you don’t trust 99+% of the people who are qualified to make a judgement. > [@](#): > > Hundreds of thousands? We can add exaggeration to the list of reasons not to trust what you say. But again, you did not read carefully what I said. I have no doubt that our species is effecting the climate, so I guess you can add me to the consensus. Well I actually meant hundreds \*or \*thousands. Glad to have you on board. I assume you’re totally behind cap-and-trade? > [@](#): > > Not really. I’m actually choosing to reserve judgement and think for myself. I assume you reserve judgement on brain surgery techniques as well? Do you scour over reams of particle-collider data before you \*really \*trust they’ve found a new particle? > [@](#): > > Just because it’s beyond you to evaluate the evidence is hardly an argument that it’s beyond me. It’s beyond both of us, I’m just the one sane enough to know it. > [@](#): > > I’m flattered that she even remembered me out of so many. Well you really stood out in her memory when you started hysterically crying because all the condoms were too big. > [@](#): > > What you think really doesn’t matter, does it? You started this thread to ask what conservatives think, remember? You asked that we limit the discussion to that topic, yes? I want to know factual things. I did ask that we cut out opinions, like stuff on abortion. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/128 "2010-04-13T01:39:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The discovery of racist Democrats in the 2008 election was a surprise to some, but not to me. You probably won’t believe [this cite](http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/31/760087/-Birthers-are-mostly-Republican-and-Southern), because it’s biased, but looks like the number is 4% for Dems, and 8% for Independents (vs 28% for Republicans). Oh, I’m sure the number of white racist Democrats is a lot higher than the number of Birther Democrats. (And many of those probably voted for Obama anyway, because some things are more important to them than race.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/129 "2010-04-13T02:02:40Z")
[Sarah Palin proven right! Government tricks beautiful young mom; imposes 1st Death Panel Verdict](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=559440) 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/130 "2010-04-13T02:09:17Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m not asking you to trust me. I’m asking why you don’t trust 99+% of the people who are qualified to make a judgement. Well, I don’t think it’s 99%, and I’m not sure how your defining scientists. There was that petition with 30K “scientists” saying global warming was b.s. but you’re definitions had to be pretty loose. In fact there are quite a few credible scientists who have their doubts. Nathan Myrhvold, Lowell Wood, and most notably Ken Caldeira (runs the ecology lab at Stanford, won the Nobel Peace Prize ) were interviewed for **Superfreakonomics** and were allowed to vet the article “What do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo have in Common?” before publication to ensure that they were not misconstrued. In that article they explain why they doubt climate modelling, and think CO2 is getting a bad rap. One interesting point they mention is that the observed global warming seen recently might be partially explained by “Good custodianship.” The fear in the 1970s was global cooling, largely thought to be caused by particulate emmissions which they say blocked the atmosphere and surface temperatures. Cleaning up of particulate emmissions caused the the climate to warm. They talk a lot about the problems with what is actually believed by non climate scientists when they are talking about climate change. It’s a bit of an eye opener. You should read it. Caldeira is about as respected as they get in the field, btw. > [@](#): > > Well I actually meant hundreds \*or \*thousands. No problem. I can only go by what you say, though. > [@](#): > > Glad to have you on board. I assume you’re totally behind cap-and-trade? Not at all. Like I said earlier, I don’t trust liberals’ “solutions” to problems. I don’t think you know what you say you think you know, and I don’t think your solutions are effective or address the real issues. I think they are excuses to do what you want to do. For example, healthcare. In the liberal view the problem is something like: “Health care is very expensive. People need to have health insurance to cover the expense. We need to do something to make sure everybody is covered so we can pay for it.” I think that’s a bad way of looking at the problem. I would look at the problem like “Healthcare for is very expensive, and becoming more so. Why is it so expensive and what can we do to make it less so?” > [@](#): > > I assume you reserve judgement on brain surgery techniques as well? Do you scour over reams of particle-collider data before you \*really \*trust they’ve found a new particle? In point of fact, I have a functioning knee because I didn’t accept the consensus, which was to perform surgery to remove the injured cartilage in spite of what the doctors said. Back then, they didn’t such cartilage could heal. Now they know it can. It did. Had they removed it, it would not have had the opportunity, and I would have had bone on bone which would have provided a few years with a quick fix at the expense of being maimed for the rest of my life. So yes, I try to read and study everything I can as regards my health when there is an issue because I believe I am responsible for it, and myself. I don’t take the word of anybody. I believe in being an informed patient and participating in the decisions that effect my health. I think you have to be an idiot not to do your due diligence. > [@](#): > > It’s beyond both of us, I’m just the one sane enough to know it. I trust you to describe your limitations. You know nothing about mine. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/131 "2010-04-13T02:19:10Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Well, I don’t think it’s 99%, and I’m not sure how your defining scientists. There was that petition with 30K “scientists” saying global warming was b.s. Oh really? [http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/6/Py2XVILHUjQ](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/6/Py2XVILHUjQ) > [@Scylla](#): > > but you’re definitions had to be pretty loose. In fact there are quite a few credible scientists who have their doubts. Nathan Myrhvold, Lowell Wood, and most notably Ken Caldeira (runs the ecology lab at Stanford, won the Nobel Peace Prize ) were interviewed for **Superfreakonomics** and were allowed to vet the article “What do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo have in Common?” before publication to ensure that they were not misconstrued. In that article they explain why they doubt climate modelling, and think CO2 is getting a bad rap. [http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/20/D6Un69RMNSw](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/20/D6Un69RMNSw) > [@](#): > > Climate science is not completely dependent on climate models. There are many threads of supporting evidence. Still, it is clear that climate models are telling us something important that we cannot afford to ignore. > [@Scylla](#): > > One interesting point they mention is that the observed global seen recently might be partially explained by “Good custodianship.” The fear in the 1970s was global cooling, largely thought to be caused by particulate emmissions which they say blocked the atmosphere and surface temperatures. Cleaning up of particulate emmissions caused the the climate to warm. They talk a lot about the problems with what is actually believed by non climate scientists when they are talking about climate change. It’s a bit of an eye opener. You should read it. [http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/7/XB3S0fnOr0M](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/7/XB3S0fnOr0M) > [@](#): > > Everyone has a favorite decade, and for Climate deniers, that decade has got to be, the 70s. > Yes, the decade of disco, kung fu, and watergate > > Because in the 70’s, Deniers will tell you, All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming. Those crazy climate scientists! Why can’t they make up their minds? > > But is that really true? > Maybe a little historical perspective is in order. Anyone that says that in the 70’s scientists were predicting global cooling is not telling you the whole truth. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/132 "2010-04-13T02:25:24Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I was just peeking in at the Obama / Palin Nuclear thread and it made me wonder. What are the large chunks of stupidity that conservatives are supposed to believe today? > > By this I mean things that are factually not true and are overwhelmingly championed by the right. I don’t want opinions, like say on abortion, but actually factual stupidity that conservatives just sort of pretend is true. The examples I can think of are: > > [ul] > [li]Global Warming is a lie, or some kind of plot or something.[/li][li]Keynesian stimulation in a deep recession is bad or something.[/li][li]Saddam was behind 911 (as of a few years ago at least)[/li][li]Marxism, Fascism, Communism, Maoism and Islamism are all the same thing and they’re what Obama is doing.[/li][li]Birthers[/li][/ul] As a conservative: 1. The problem with Global Warming is that anyone who tries to look at it with healthy skepticism is put in the same category of a Holocaust denier. Do you care to discuss why in “An Inconvienent Truth”, Gore’s charts show CO2 lagging BEHIND temperature change or would you just rather accuse me of kidnapping the Lindburgh baby since 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of world scientists agree to GW (according to you). 2. And why should we believe it’s good? FDR tried it for 8 years and most people believe it was WW2 and not Keynes that ended the depression. How is taking from people who have no money as opposed to letting them spend it better at stimulating the economy? 3. No one I know seriously believed this. The issue was a leader that practiced genocide and ethnic cleansing against his own citizens (must … not … Godwinize). Then again, it you think we should have sat back and let him gas the Kurds into extinction let me know. 4. Similar to #3, let’s take the lunatic fringe on one side and ascribe their wackyness to everyone. 5. I think this is an interesting one. I’m sure a few fringe types (like #3 and #4) believe he was born in Kenya. Most conservatives like me were more bothered by the fact that there was no system in place that a presidential candidate had to PROVE that they met the eligibility requirements. Sec’ies of State said they assumed that the parties nominated eligible people. Congress only made sure the votes came from the proper electors. Courts said that ordinary people have no standing to ensure their President is eligible (while legally appropriate, it sounds REALLY bad). It’s not that we believe that Obama was not an NBC, but more of “what’s to stop a 13 year old from Lithuania from running for president? nothing really” sort of feeling. The whole contraversy with the “long form” was just a clusterfuck, especially when people probably have birth cerificates (like mine) that list the hospital and doctor where as his was “filed” in Honolulu. But again, only the fringe element thought it was a coverup and that he really is a furriner. Incidently, are you talking about a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, religious right conservative, teabagger or Glenn Beck? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/133 "2010-04-13T02:27:17Z")
> [@](#): > > …Like I said earlier, I don’t trust liberals’ “solutions” to problems… Is there a Free Market (Blessings and peace be upon it!) solution to the problem? One that doesn’t require intervention and regulation? If you’re bleeding, is tourniquet a liberal solution or a conservative one? If the AGW stuff is on the level, and I think it is, then we’ve got a lot to do and little time to do it. There ain’t no liberal dead, or conservative dead. There’s just dead. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/134 "2010-04-13T02:27:53Z")
Caldeira BTW has reported that he was misrepresented in Superfreakonomics: [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why\_everything\_in\_superfreakon.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why_everything_in_superfreakon.php) > [@](#): > > But enough on why they got everything wrong. Let’s look at what they got wrong. My Global Warming Sceptic Bingo Card is a bit out of date but they manage to tick five boxes: global warming is a religion, ice cores show warming comes first, ice age predicted in the 70s, water vapour dominates and climate modelling isn’t scientific. William Connolley stopped when he had found ten serious errors, so I’ll continue where he left off and see if I can find ten more. To make it more of a challenge, I’m just going to look at the extract that appeared in the Sunday Times entitled “Why Everything You Think You Know About Global Warming Is Wrong”. And remember, this is on top of the ten serious errors that Connolley found. > > Unless otherwise indicated all quotes are from the Sunday Times extract. > > 1. “Yet [Ken Caldeira]'s research tells him that carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight.” > > Caldeira has exactly one quote on his home page: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Carbon dioxide is the right villain,” says Caldeira, “insofar as inanimate objects can be villains.” > > Joe Romm asked Caldeira about the misrepresentation of his views and he told Romm: > > > [@](#): > > > > If you talk all day, and somebody picks a half dozen quotes without providing context because they want to make a provocative and controversial chapter, there is not much you can do. > > 1. “Caldeira’s study showed that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide while holding steady all other inputs - water, nutrients and so forth -yields a 70% increase in plant growth, an obvious boon to agricultural productivity.” > > That would be this paper. Look at the abstract: > > > [@](#): > > > > Climate stabilization via “Geoengineering” schemes seek to mitigate climate change due to increased greenhouse gases by compensating reduction in solar radiation incident on earth’s surface. In this paper, we address the impact of these climate stabilization schemes on terrestrial biosphere using equilibrium simulations from a coupled atmosphere-terrestrial biosphere model. Climate stabilization would tend to limit changes in vegetation distribution brought on by climate change, but would not prevent CO2-induced changes in Net Primary Productivity (NPP) or biomass; indeed, if CO2 fertilization is significant, then a climate-stabilized world could have higher NPP than our current world. Nevertheless, there are many reasons why geoengineering is not a preferred option for climate stabilization. > > So if CO2 fertilization is significant you get a 70% increase in plant growth. Levitt and Dubner turned that into “you get a 70% increase in plant growth”. Note also that Caldeira used a climate model of the type that L&D said could not be trusted. And did you notice the last sentence? L&D simply ignore the reasons why Caldeira said that geoengineering is not a preferred option. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/135 "2010-04-13T02:28:34Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Well, I don’t think it’s 99%, and I’m not sure how your defining scientists. There was that petition with 30K “scientists” saying global warming was b.s. That isn’t true. Those 30k names were largely collected off the internet and all were collected without verification. The vast majority of names are not climate scientists. Seriously, we’ve discussed this over and over again, no one thinks that list is credible. > [@](#): > > but you’re[sic] definitions had to be pretty loose. In fact there are quite a few credible scientists who have their doubts. Nathan Myrhvold, Lowell Wood, and most notably Ken Caldeira (runs the ecology lab at Stanford, won the Nobel Peace Prize ) were interviewed for **Superfreakonomics** and were allowed to vet the article “What do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo have in Common?” before publication to ensure that they were not misconstrued. In that article they explain why they doubt climate modelling, and think CO2 is getting a bad rap. One interesting point they mention is that the observed global warming seen recently might be partially explained by “Good custodianship.” Wrong. From here: [http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2201](http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2201) > [@](#): > > Yale Environment 360: I want to start with this little dust-up over SuperFreakonomics. In the book, you are quoted as saying, when it comes to global warming, “Carbon dioxide is not the right villain.” Is that accurate? > > Ken Caldeira: That is not accurate. I don’t believe I said anything remotely like that because I believe that we should be outlawing the production of devices that emit carbon dioxide, and I don’t think we can solve this carbon climate problem unless we drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions very soon. > > e360: They also write that you are convinced that human activity is responsible for “some” global warming. What does that mean? > > Caldeira: I don’t think we can say with certainty whether we’re responsible for 90 percent of it or we might be responsible for 110 percent of it. But the vast majority of global warming, I believe, is due to human release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. So your sources are full of shit. > [@](#): > > The fear in the 1970s was global cooling, largely thought to be caused by particulate emmissions which they say blocked the atmosphere and surface temperatures. Cleaning up of particulate emmissions caused the the climate to warm. They talk a lot about the problems with what is actually believed by non climate scientists when they are talking about climate change. It’s a bit of an eye opener. You should read it. Global cooling was never a scientific consensus. > [@](#): > > Caldeira is about as respected as they get in the field, btw. See above. > [@](#): > > No problem. I can only go by what you say, though. Meh. > [@](#): > > Not at all. Like I said earlier, I don’t trust liberals’ “solutions” to problems. I don’t think you know what you say you think you know, and I don’t think your solutions are effective or address the real issues. I think they are excuses to do what you want to do. They aren’t. However, as shown conclusively, you believe what you want to believe. You’re so full of shit there’s corn in your hair. > [@](#): > > For example, healthcare. In the liberal view the problem is something like: “Health care is very expensive. People need to have health insurance to cover the expense. We need to do something to make sure everybody is covered so we can pay for it.” That’s your view of what Liberals are thinking. We’re actually thinking that the health insurance industry is making it impossible for a large portion of the population to get health insurance, at any cost. And we also think that every other nation on Earth with UHC does better for less money. That’s a fact, and you’re too stupid and ideological to admit it. > [@](#): > > I think that’s a bad way of looking at the problem. I would look at the problem like “Healthcare for is very expensive, and becoming more so. Why is it so expensive and what can we do to make it less so?” Good for you the HCR bill has cost control measures built it. Yay! You got what you wanted! > [@](#): > > In point of fact, I have a functioning knee because I didn’t accept the consensus, which was to perform surgery to remove the injured cartilage in spite of what the doctors said. Back then, they didn’t such cartilage could heal. Now they know it can. It did. Had they removed it, it would not have had the opportunity, and I would have had bone on bone which would have provided a few years with a quick fix at the expense of being maimed for the rest of my life. So yes, I try to read and study everything I can as regards my health when there is an issue because I believe I am responsible for it, and myself. I don’t take the word of anybody. I believe in being an informed patient and participating in the decisions that effect my health. I think you have to be an idiot not to do your due diligence. I honestly could not give one shit about your knee. > [@](#): > > I trust you to describe your limitations. You know nothing about mine. I know for a fact you are either a moron, or are pretending to be one. If you’re pretending, awesome job dude! ---
**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:** [April 13, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/136 "2010-04-13T02:30:59Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > As a conservative: > > 1. The problem with Global Warming is that anyone who tries to look at it with healthy skepticism is put in the same category of a Holocaust denier. Do you care to discuss why in “An Inconvienent Truth”, Gore’s charts show CO2 lagging BEHIND temperature change or would you just rather accuse me of kidnapping the Lindburgh baby since 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of world scientists agree to GW (according to you). Unfortunately for you “denier” was invented in the 15th century. > **[CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)** > > \When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. > > Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/137 "2010-04-13T02:31:32Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > …I honestly could not give one shit about your knee… What’s a crummy joint like this doing in a nice boy like you? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/138 "2010-04-13T02:41:23Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > As a conservative: > > 1. The problem with Global Warming is that anyone who tries to look at it with healthy skepticism is put in the same category of a Holocaust denier. Do you care to discuss why in “An Inconvienent Truth”, Gore’s charts show CO2 lagging BEHIND temperature change or would you just rather accuse me of kidnapping the Lindburgh baby since 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of world scientists agree to GW (according to you). The problem is you are believing lies. Look, there are literally thousands of scientists who think AGW is happening. There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles in journals and millions of discrete pieces of evidence. That you are skeptical is a worthless fact. You are not qualified to judge it any more than you are qualified to weigh in on the best method for removing a brain tumor (assuming you aren’t a brain surgeon). There is no magic one chart that disproves AGW, if there was it would be disproven. You are a conspiracy theorist believing absolute rubbish. > [@](#): > > 1. And why should we believe it’s good? FDR tried it for 8 years and most people believe it was WW2 and not Keynes that ended the depression. How is taking from people who have no money as opposed to letting them spend it better at stimulating the economy? You are misinformed about economics. FDR saved us with stimulating spending. When he stopped and tried to reduce the deficit during the depression it started getting worse immediately. And by the way, WWII was stimulus spending!!! > [@](#): > > 1. No one I know seriously believed this. The issue was a leader that practiced genocide and ethnic cleansing against his own citizens (must … not … Godwinize). Then again, it you think we should have sat back and let him gas the Kurds into extinction let me know. Seriously? How many Kurds was he gassing in 2003? > [@](#): > > 1. Similar to #3, let’s take the lunatic fringe on one side and ascribe their wackyness to everyone. I’m willing to accept that many don’t believe this. However a scary amount seem to. > [@](#): > > 1. I think this is an interesting one. I’m sure a few fringe types (like #3 and #4) believe he was born in Kenya. Most conservatives like me were more bothered by the fact that there was no system in place that a presidential candidate had to PROVE that they met the eligibility requirements. Sec’ies of State said they assumed that the parties nominated eligible people. Congress only made sure the votes came from the proper electors. Courts said that ordinary people have no standing to ensure their President is eligible (while legally appropriate, it sounds REALLY bad). It’s not that we believe that Obama was not an NBC, but more of “what’s to stop a 13 year old from Lithuania from running for president? nothing really” sort of feeling. > > The whole contraversy with the “long form” was just a clusterfuck, especially when people probably have birth cerificates (like mine) that list the hospital and doctor where as his was “filed” in Honolulu. But again, only the fringe element thought it was a coverup and that he really is a furriner. I believe I talked about this up a bit. > [@](#): > > Incidently, are you talking about a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, religious right conservative, teabagger or Glenn Beck? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/139 "2010-04-13T02:53:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Caldeira BTW has reported that he was misrepresented in Superfreakonomics: > > [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why\_everything\_in\_superfreakon.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why_everything_in_superfreakon.php) I’ve seen that. It’s kind of interesting. Levitt and Dubner sent Caldeira the full text of the article to review it before publication to ensure that it was accurate and none of the scientists felt they had been misrepresented or taken out of context. Caldeira vetted the article as written. It was only when the reaction to it emerged that he changed his mind. Why would he have vetted the article if it misrepresented to him? That’s a leading question. Caldeira answers that too. He says he didn’t read it carefully. Not sure what to make of that. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/140 "2010-04-13T02:58:39Z")
My cite [http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/](http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660.md?page=8)