|
Richard Littlemore |
Penn and Teller: Uncontested Experts in Bullshit11 Oct 06
Thanks to Wacki for tipping us to this Penn and Teller edition slamming the science behind climate change - in fact, slamming science behind pretty much all environmental concerns. For my part, I thought Penn and Teller were those guys who got mauled by their own tiger, but it turns out they aren't quite so courageous. All their work is conducted from behind the protective glass of a camera that somebody else carries into the real world. Pushing "experts" like Patrick "Gobs of Money" Moore and Bjorn "The Skeptical Environmentalist" Lomborg, and relying even more on the cheap exploitation of ditzy environmental campaigners and on opportunistic film cuts, Penn makes fun of pretty much everybody and everything environmental. He also recruits a disinformation specialist of phenomenal ability to push an anti-dihydrogen monoxide petition (without ever offering that dihydrogen monoxide is water). It's reminiscient of every high-school gotcha pulled by a SMARMY smart kid who was trying to prove that he was a smarmy SMART kid. Penn also dismisses the deSmogBlog's own Ross Gelbspan with an expletive - although the offensive TV host doesn't actually address any of the facts that Ross offers. If you have the stomach to watch this tape, ask yourself if Penn and Teller were really trying to raise the level of environmental education or whether they were just tying to look clever. Ask yourself whether climate change science is really a worldwide socialist plot or perhaps exactly the global threat that Ross so eloquently argues it to be. Whatever answer you ultimately come to, we urge you to seek sources more serious than Penn and Teller, and experts less completely compromised than Patrick Moore, Bjorn Lomborg and the assembled industrial apologists at the Cato Institute. ![]() |
i think you missed their
"penn and teller are
"penn and teller are attacking the HISTERIA behind the environmentalist movement. fifteen years ago the public was told they had to act RIGHT NOW or we all faced certain death."
Talk about hysterial overreaction. When someone tells you we should act now because things will be harder to change later, and that it may not be possible to change later, and that things are getting worse, if you hear them saying "you will face certain death" you really need to get a grip. (Of course I'm facing certain death myself, as is everyone I know, but then I'm not one of the priveleged ones. :)
P&T's science knowledge comes directly from the nearest libertarian think thank, generally Cato. They have a nice magic act, but their science is ludicrously bound to their libertarianism. It traps them and makes them say really stupid things. I have heard they've backtracked on their claims that secondhand smoke causes no problems, and if so, that's a mark on the plus side for them. But most of what I've heard when they talk about science is nonsense.
A little warmer.
It's been asked and
It's been asked and answered. We are causing it and it is our problem (which it would be even if we weren't causing it).
causing it
We are not causing it per se, but we are, beyond the shadow of a doubt, contributing to it and/or accelerating it. I would like to know if it is even possible to stop and reverse it, when that study comes out I will be all ears as to whether or not I should change my lifestyle.
Why did Al Gore get that award? He didn't even really do anything. Isn't it nice to get paid, and awarded for telling everyone about something that they already knew, and popularizing the data that they were all eagerly anticipating.
I think the dihydrogen
I think the dihydrogen monoxide petition was not a cheap trick. Unless you are a chronic joiner, you should always ask questions before signing a petition. Anybody who can not figure out that two hydrogens and one oxygen is water does not have even an elementary understanding of science. Your average elementary school student would not fall for this stunt. If someone is this ignorant when it comes to basic science, what business do they have in any sensible discussion about the environment. I think the one lady was right, most of the people present didn't even know what they were there for.
If I question any of the data presented in defense of some the global warming hypotheses, I open myself to personal attack from knee-jerk environmentalists. There is plenty of area for reasonable debate without immediately questioning the motives of those who may hold an opposing view. One commenter here states that all the questions about global warming have been asked and answered. I disagree so that must make me a puppet for oil and chemical companies. I guess all those big checks got lost in the mail because I have yet to receive one.
Okay, then start asking them...
I don't see any unanswered questions in that post. A 'for instance' would be helpful.









Environmental bullshit?