# 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:** 8
**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 13, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/141 "2010-04-13T03:07:26Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m not a bully. You’re an idiot. Tastes great. Less filling. The two are not mutually exclusive. You both can be both! Don’t sell yourselves short. ---
**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, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/142 "2010-04-13T03:10:08Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Tastes great. Less filling. The two are not mutually exclusive. You both can be both! Don’t sell yourselves short. As long as he’s still an idiot, I’ll take the bully thing. 😃 ---
**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, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/143 "2010-04-13T03:11:33Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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. You need to read a little more carefully. That was kind of my point. [quote] Wrong. From here: [http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2201](http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2201) So your sources are full of shit. [quote] Not so much. Global cooling was never a scientific consensus. > [@](#): > > 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. “Every other nation with UHC does better for less money. That’s a fact” I’ve already called you out for exaggerations several times tonight, and you’ve been kind enough to correct them. You want to fix this one, too? > [@](#): > > I honestly could not give one shit about your knee. Then you shouldn’t have brought it up. You asked about my views towards accepting the opinions of experts like brain surgeons and such or whether I did my own research and I answered you. If you don’t want to know, don’t ask. > [@](#): > > I know for a fact you are either a moron, or are pretending to be one. If you’re pretending, awesome job dude! I kind of knew that you weren’t interested in what conservatives but rather were focussed on making fun of what conservatives think. I don’t think that’s a particularly admirable or intelligent stance, and I don’t think your responses have been particularly thoughtful or accurate. You’ve done a lot to strengthen my viewpoints and disdain of popular liberalism these days. Thanks. ---
**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, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/144 "2010-04-13T03:14:10Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 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/) The counter to that: [http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/19/anatomy-of-a-debunking-yes-caldeira-says-superfreakonomics-is-damaging-to-me-because-it-is-an-inaccurate-portrayal-of-me-and-filled-with-many-statements-that-are-misleading-statements-a/](http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/19/anatomy-of-a-debunking-yes-caldeira-says-superfreakonomics-is-damaging-to-me-because-it-is-an-inaccurate-portrayal-of-me-and-filled-with-many-statements-that-are-misleading-statements-a/) > [@](#): > > UPDATE: For an independent vindication of my reporting here, see Bloomberg interview of Dubner and Caldeira backs up my reporting on error-riddled Superfreakonomics. Dubner is baffled that Caldeira “doesn’t believe geoengineering can work without cutting emissions.” > > I wish I didn’t have to waste valuable blogging time writing this post to set the record straight. If, like most people, you understand that Dubner and Leavitt — and Roger Pielke, Jr and Marc Morano — regularly make misstatements and/or misrepresent what others say and that the latter two regularly smear people based on those misrepresentations, you might skip this post. > > On the other hand, Dubner and Leavitt still don’t understand what they got wrong — both in the entire chapter and in how they mis-portray the views of the primary climatologist they rely on. So this post will be useful to set that record straight. Also, anyone who wants to know how I do things may also find this interesting. As you’ll see, I have accurately represented what Caldeira believes, and the Superfreaks have not. > > The verdict on the book by leading economists is in. As Nobelist Krugman writes today: > > > [@](#): > > > > Legalistic quibbling about who said what in an email isn’t going to help Dubner and Levitt here: in this crucial chapter, there’s an average of one statement per page that’s either flatly untrue or deeply misleading. > > Berkeley economist Brad DeLong writes today: > > > [@](#): > > > > Thus I have a little unsolicited advice for Levitt and Dubner. If I were them, I would abjectly apologize. > > He then goes through the chapter, offering them suggested page by page edits. > > Thus, when I broke the story last Monday, I was accurate in my assessment: Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’: New book pushes global cooling myths, sheer illogic, and patent nonsense — and the primary climatologist it relies on, Ken Caldeira, says it is an inaccurate portrayal of me and misleading in many places. > > I have mostly explained what happened in Part 5, but since Dubner has spun out a variety of falsehoods with the help of Pielke and Morano, let me tell the story chronologically. I will note first, however, that Dubner just makes crap up in his attack on me. Dubner another one of the Superfreaks typical un-fact-checked and false assertions yesterday, “The text was never searchable on Amazon.” > > Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate replied directly to Dubner on his NYT website: > > > [@](#): > > > > With all due respect, the text at Amazon was indeed searchable at the time Romm posted his first post. It is not now. > > Ouch. Gavin’s debunking is here, with links to debunkings by other physical scientists. > [@](#): > > I know my regular readers understand how hard I try to accurately portray what the scientists I talk to mean — and what they mean to say. But for those others who might be persuaded by the selective quoting and misrepresentations of Dubner, Levitt, and Pielke, I think it is pretty clear that my original, debunking blog post — including the headline — was in fact an accurate representation of what Caldeira wrote to me: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’: New book pushes global cooling myths, sheer illogic, and “patent nonsense” — and the primary climatologist it relies on, Ken Caldeira, says “it is an inaccurate portrayal of me” and “misleading” in “many” places. > > > > ``` > > Yes, Caldeira is unhappy that he got caught up in this. Who can blame him? He is a leading climatologist and wants to spend his time doing climatology and persuading policymakers of the urgent need for action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. > > So now you know the whole story of how I came to wrote my accurate debunking of the error-riddled book, Superfreakonomics. There’s been no smear job — except by Dubner, Pielke and Morano. > > Of course, the story was never about me or some emails, but about the “average of one statement per page that’s either flatly untrue or deeply misleading,” in the chapter, as Krugman says, for which, the authors should “abjectly apologize,” as DeLong says. > > If the publisher had not taken down the chapter I posted or if someone hadn’t stopped the book from being searchable, then everyone would have seen from day one that my analysis was dead on, rather than it taking a few days for that to be clear. ---
**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, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/145 "2010-04-13T03:16:11Z")
> [@](#): > > …and disdain of popular liberalism these days. Thanks. Let me see if I got this straight… You bring in a cite about how liberals are full of shit about global warming. Turns out, your cite is full of shit. Naturally, this reinforces your appraisal of liberals being full of shit. We at the Mother’s March Against Cognitive Dissonance haven’t yet picked our 2011 poster child. Have you a recent photo available? ---
**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, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/146 "2010-04-13T03:32:57Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > You need to read a little more carefully. That was kind of my point. Then why bring it up? It’s utterly discredited. > [@](#): > > I’ve already called you out for exaggerations several times tonight, and you’ve been kind enough to correct them. You want to fix this one, too? Not really. > [@](#): > > Then you shouldn’t have brought it up. You asked about my views towards accepting the opinions of experts like brain surgeons and such or whether I did my own research and I answered you. If you don’t want to know, don’t ask. You’re honestly so stupid you don’t understand the distinction. You’re a layman. And most likely not even very good at your actual job, you don’t know enough to make a judgement about AGW, that you shopped around for a knee procedure makes not a whiff of difference in this. > [@](#): > > I kind of knew that you weren’t interested in what conservatives but rather were focussed on making fun of what conservatives think. I don’t think that’s a particularly admirable or intelligent stance, and I don’t think your responses have been particularly thoughtful or accurate. I’m not interested in your ignorant opinions. I’m interested in what most conservatives believe that isn’t based on fact. You know, like you believe AGW is fake or something because you are gullible enough to buy into the anti-GW crowd’s arguments. > [@](#): > > You’ve done a lot to strengthen my viewpoints and disdain of popular liberalism these days. Thanks. I’m sure I have, because you most likely haven’t had a genuine thought in years. You just search for things to buttress your pre-conceived bullshit and wrap yourself in it. Pathetic. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2010, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/147 "2010-04-13T04:12:20Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > [Sarah Palin proven right! Government tricks beautiful young mom; imposes 1st Death Panel Verdict](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=559440) > > 😃 Loathe as I may be to interrupt this, the six-million, eight-hundred-and seventy-nine-thousand, six-hundred-and seventy-second time that **Lobohan** has seen fit to call an adversary an idiot, a moron, stupid, or any comination thereof in a quarter as many posts, I would like to direct the gentle reader’s attention to [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12334952&postcount=97), in which I offer a mea culpa of sorts, given that I made an error of oversight in my initial reading of the story. One hates to have to admit things like this, but as I’ve often said when coming from the other side of the aisle, things are what they are. And what they are in this case is that I made a mistake. Still, as I think you’ll see in the paragraph that follows this noble admission of error, the overriding objection still stands. 🆒 ---
**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, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/148 "2010-04-13T04:26:58Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Loathe as I may be to interrupt this, the six-million, eight-hundred-and seventy-nine-thousand, six-hundred-and seventy-second time that **Lobohan** has seen fit to call an adversary an idiot, a moron, stupid, or any comination thereof in a quarter as many posts… Dumb-head. 😃 ---
**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:** [April 13, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/149 "2010-04-13T04:29:06Z")
Ah, a fresh insult! Thank you, thank you, thank you. 🆒 ---
**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, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/150 "2010-04-13T04:40:22Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Loathe as I may be to interrupt this, the six-million, eight-hundred-and seventy-nine-thousand, six-hundred-and seventy-second time that **Lobohan** has seen fit to call an adversary an idiot, a moron, stupid, or any comination thereof in a quarter as many posts, I would like to direct the gentle reader’s attention to [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12334952&postcount=97), in which I offer a mea culpa of sorts, given that I made an error of oversight in my initial reading of the story. One hates to have to admit things like this, but as I’ve often said when coming from the other side of the aisle, things are what they are. And what they are in this case is that I made a mistake. Still, as I think you’ll see in the paragraph that follows this noble admission of error, the overriding objection still stands. 🆒 My impression is that since the update of the quoted article in that OP says that: > [@](#): > > Since the CBS4 News report first aired last Friday, several lawmakers jumped in. Late Monday afternoon Jackson Memorial Hospital confirmed Smith will have her surgery later this week after all. Not even your overriding objection stands. Sarah Palin was not right, and no: this was not a “death panel” death sentence. As many pointed out, if everything had been controlled by private hands she would had been told to fly a kite; as it turns out, because there is a public component to this, lawmakers intervened so she is going to get treatment. When private insurers where told that they should stop doing rescissions unless clear evidence of fraud was involved, they told even lawmakers to go fly a kite, back then **even Republicans were appalled** by what the insurance companies were doing, but not so appalled when they still voted to try to maintain that sick status quo. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/151 "2010-04-13T05:05:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > My impression is that since the update of the quoted article in that OP says that: > > Not even your overriding objection stands. Sarah Palin was not right, and no: this was not a “death panel” death sentence. As many pointed out, if everything had been controlled by private hands she would had been told to fly a kite… As she would have as well had her plight not made the news. One can only wonder how many people die or otherwise get refused badly needed treatment over snafus like this which nobody ever hears about. With regard to insurance companies, they aren’t nearly as bad as UHC proponents claim. Sure, out of the hundreds of millions of claims that get filed every year, it’s possible to find examples of egregious behavior. Still, if they were all that bad you wouldn’t see so many doctors and hospitals (apart from stopgap emergency treatment) refusing to treat patients who don’t have insurance. ---
**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, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/152 "2010-04-13T05:13:25Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > As she would have as well had her plight not made the news. One can only wonder how many people die or otherwise get refused badly needed treatment over snafus like this which nobody ever hears about. Those goalposts are heavy to move indeed. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > With regard to insurance companies, they aren’t nearly as bad as UHC proponents claim. Sure, out of the hundreds of millions of claims that get filed every year, it’s possible to find examples of egregious behavior. Still, if they were all that bad you wouldn’t see so many doctors and hospitals (apart from stopgap emergency treatment) refusing to treat patients who don’t have insurance. They can not do anything like that in countries with UHC, period. And the point was that they told the lawmakers in congress to go fly a kite. ---
**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, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/153 "2010-04-13T05:32:00Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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. First of all, as someone who has studied statistics AND logic for my degrees, I believe that I AM qualified to view some of the results with a critical eye. Also, I never said I doubted GW or even AGW. I merely pointed out that those who are skeptical are automatically discounted. Also, many who believe in GW state that ALL scientist agree on GW when in fact many scientists don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/154 "2010-04-13T05:45:17Z")
Being “skeptical” of AGW is like being skeptical of evolution. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2010, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/155 "2010-04-13T05:56:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > They can not do anything like that in countries with UHC, period. And the point was that they told the lawmakers in congress to go fly a kite. I don’t know what you’re getting at. If you mean that doctors and hospitals in countries with UHC can’t turn people away, that pretty much goes without saying doesn’t it? If you mean that in countries with UHC there are no egregious occurances, I’ll have to reserve belief on that one. If your final comment is meant to refer to insurance company intransigence in the face of congressional hearings, then my response would be to pass laws and legislate their behavior so as not to allow them to operate fraudulently, just as we do with other types of businesses. Then if they don’t cooperate, shut 'em down and make their executives subject to jail terms. I can’t believe that you seem to think that Congress is powerless to deal with intransigent insurance companies. ---
**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, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/156 "2010-04-13T06:14:18Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I don’t know what you’re getting at. If you mean that doctors and hospitals in countries with UHC can’t turn people away, that pretty much goes without saying doesn’t it? If you mean that in countries with UHC there are no egregious occurances, I’ll have to reserve belief on that one. > > If your final comment is meant to refer to insurance company intransigence in the face of congressional hearings, then my response would be to pass laws and legislate their behavior so as not to allow them to operate fraudulently, just as we do with other types of businesses. Then if they don’t cooperate, shut 'em down and make their executives subject to jail terms. I can’t believe that you seem to think that Congress is powerless to deal with intransigent insurance companies. When they vote to protect them.. no. But that hearing was one of the reasons why democrats did the right thing and voted to make rescissions with no good cause illegal (are you so out of it that you are ignoring that that was one of the points of the reforms just passed?). Many conservatives were and remain in the pockets of those executives or continue to believe in stupid shit to continue opposing the reforms. ---
**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, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/157 "2010-04-13T06:14:34Z")
> [@](#): > > … you seem to think that Congress is powerless to deal with intransigent insurance companies. I’m going to suggest something shocking to you, perhaps you’d best sit down. Its because they have oodles of money. ---
**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, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/158 "2010-04-13T06:28:36Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > First of all, as someone who has studied statistics AND logic for my degrees, I believe that I AM qualified to view some of the results with a critical eye. Also, I never said I doubted GW or even AGW. I merely pointed out that those who are skeptical are automatically discounted. Also, many who believe in GW state that ALL scientist agree on GW when in fact many scientists don’t. For an statician I think you have a funny definition for “many” In reality it is few. Very few do not agree. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) > [@](#): > > IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)]. > > Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). > > The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9). > > The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. > > Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. > > This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/159 "2010-04-13T06:42:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Now we’re getting more into the area of opinion, and where economists will disagree. It also depends on what you are trying to accomplish. However, it’s unclear to me that that thought is fundamental to conservative thought. Wait. You know of an economist who believes that _cutting_ the budget deficit during a recession is a good idea? Do you have a cite? Honest question. There are a few economists who believe that fiscal policy is ineffective, but that’s another argument. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2010, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660/160 "2010-04-13T07:29:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > When they vote to protect them.. no. > > But that hearing was one of the reasons why democrats did the right thing and voted to make rescissions with no good cause illegal (are you so out of it that you are ignoring that that was one of the points of the reforms just passed?) So your answer then is yes, Congress is powerless to control insurance companies due to their vast financial resources? Then how come it just passed a bill that not only imposes all kinds of new responsibilities and obligations upon insurance companies while at the same time cramming that same bill down the thoats of an electorate that for one reason or another disapproved of it by margin of 65% to 35%? It looks to me like Congress doesn’t much care about repercussions from either the insurance companies OR the electorate, as its current approval rating hovering just above single digits clearly shows. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-stupid-shit-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be-a-conservative-today/535660.md?page=9)