Skeptic Project

Uh, I'm pretty sure I understand what I read.

I really do think you have some sort of learning disability. Really, stick to the 911 stuff for your own good.

There's nothing to comment on. You honestly believe that you're somehow capable of understanding things that no one else can and you've demonstrated that you're either unwilling or unable to deviate from that position in past threads.

That's why I generally don't debate with you Ed. You don't debate. You preach. In my books, you're still not much different than your old Zeitard self. I don't debate Zeitards either, and for the same reasons.

I didn't say you were illiterate. I said you had a learning disability, and I'm not the only one who's thought that.

I know, Ed. You're never wrong.

Your "commentary" is just another example of you thinking you can somehow glean understanding from something that no one else can, when really what you're doing is just rationalizing why you're still right.

I debate plenty of people Ed. Just not you, and for a very specific reason.

Matt! I get it! You think I'm wrong! You think my commentary on the article was wrong, you still can't seem to come up with a single reason WHY you think I'm wrong but lets leave that for now...

Currently I'm interested in knowing WHY you posted that article by Penn and why you think it shows that I was wrong. Care to explain why you posted it? You seemed to think it disproved me outright, why?

EDIT:

For example:

You said... "you seem to enjoy ignoring the very information you requested."... What were you referring to?

@oreolvrs:

Keep in mind that the Environmentalist Hysteria episode was made and aired in 2003 prior to the 2006 IPCC report that cemented the reality of AGW and the Being Green episode produced and aired after 2006

As the website I posted earlier said...

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bullsheit.html</p>

15:50 Penn says "they must remember we are still gathering information..... we are not sure yet!"

Maybe Penn should actually do a little research or ask a real scientist what the scientific consensus is before he makes such a bold claim. The National Acadamies of 18 countries and every single scientific institution with relative expertise disagrees with him. This episode was filmed after the IPCC's Third Assessment Report and the Royal Societies Joint Statement which was co-signed by 16 countries. Here is a massive list of people that say we do know. Dr. James Baker says "There's a better scientific consensus on this than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics". There is probably a very good reason why there is such a strong worldwide consensus. Maybe Penn should have asked them what those reasons might be.

Why didn't Penn discuss any of that? Why did he rely on fake discredited "experts" like Bjorn Lomborg and shamefully ignorant misleading and dishonest myths about the temperature data and global cooling?

Why did he leave it up to ignorant hippies to explain the facts around climate science? I get the idea is to show irrational environmentalists, but that is not what they ended up doing. Global Warming denialists will be the first people to say that they do not advocate that we intentionally mess up our planet and not work on renewable clean energies and so on, just that either Global Warming isn't happening or that we aren't responsible. The idea that Penn should get a free ride seems to be based on nothing at all other than we like him because he's done some other good stuff.

Look at that article Matt posted before. In 2008 about 4-5 years after he made the show and he's still apparently just as ignorant as he was then. Apparently looking for sympathy from his fellow skeptics and scientists and asking why its not okay to say you "don't know" because he's not a scientist, acting like he never made the show he made 5 years earlier where he pretended he knew what he was talking about.

I never said they were right, I just said that they weren't denialists. I believe that ACC/AGW exists but I don't think that running around and jumping on the latest 'silver bullet' is a good idea. P&T are saying the same thing and showing you why. Got it?

@Inside Job:

I never said they were right, I just said that they weren't denialists. I believe that ACC/AGW exists but I don't think that running around and jumping on the latest 'silver bullet' is a good idea.

P&T are saying the same thing and showing you why. Got it?

No, they did not say that at all. You are denying the fact that they promoted denialist clams in the exact same way denialists make them. There is literally no difference whatsoever. As I keep telling you I could easily take all their claims and arguments about GW and put it on some crazy conspiracy theorist website and no one would be able to tell the difference.

/EDIT/
I already said they could have shown some real errors in something like An Inconvenient Truth and show how a lot environmentalists dont really understand what they're talking about. But then they should go on to talk about the real science of GW and point out how dishonest the deniers are. That is what the show should have been.
/EDIT/

Instead of showing how irrational environmentalists can be in their beliefs, it ended up looking like they were just using them to make GW look stupid, looking to them to explain the science around it and then making fun of them when they obviously failed.

So what if Penn says he "doesn't know"?. Various truthers use the same tactic of not making any solid claims about the conspiracy , just claim they are asking questions and need a new investigation... and did you know firefighters heard explosions? And why is it NORAD stood down? And why is it the hijackers weren't on the passenger manifests? But I'm not saying 911 was an inside job, just that we have anomalies that deserve investigation since we don't have enough information. According to your logic I wouldn't be a truther (or if you prefer a 911 conspiracy theorist) in this example.

You want to pretend Penn isn't a global warming denier even though he believes all the same rubbish they do. Okay, apparently you won't change your mind on that. But surely you can see that after 5 years he still hasn't even got further than... "is GW happening?". If you're THAT ignorant of GW then why make a program that claims to be pointing out "bullshit" environmentalist claims about it? So saying he "doesn't know" is just an admission that the whole episode was "bullshit" from the start. He pretended he knew what he was talking about at the time and 5 years later he still doesn't know anything. That's pretty tragic.

As I said at the start Penn and Teller arent always right and this particular show is a great example as to why. It really is an inch off the quality of a Jesse Ventura "Conspiracy Theory" episode. It really is THAT BAD.

@Bill:

You just sound like you're quoting VTV gibbish word salad again so I won't bother.

lol, Bill, im not falling for it twice, you posted the exact same quote in the McDonalds thread :)

Jesus, what the hell happened here?

I was going to say that even our beloved NPR is not immune to the green gimmick...

http://shop.npr.org/green-gifts/</p>

But I guess the thread has moved on.

Blah blah blah. Ed preaching from his pulpit as always. Too bad he has no congregation, just one lone retard up against the world.

Ed, you live in a fantasy world pal. A complete and total fantasy world.

Just go back to TZM already. You fit in better over there.

@Snobgoblin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

Their guest who cites a popular trend that obscures what he calls "cost-benefit-analysis" for how best to deal with climate change. He takes direct aim not at the existence of climate change, but rather the way it is portrayed and processed in media and popular culture. Hardly a fake expert.

Here is a sample from an interview he gave with the new statesman

What is your position on global warming?
Global warming is real - it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world.

You have been branded a climate-change denier. Have you changed your mind?
No, I haven't changed my mind, but the global warming debate is so polarised that there is space for only two possible viewpoints: either it's the end of the world, or you think it is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated. Because I dared to be sceptical, a lot of people pushed me into the deniers' camp.

This particular guest from the episode illuminates exactly how one may maintain a position of "skepticism" and not be compressed into a position of "global warming denialism." Indeed, his entire position is that the debate is far too polarized and that it inhibits smart approaches to corrected many of the key issues at hand. This hardly constitutes denying that climate change exists, and we should ask why Penn & Teller have this guest on if their only agenda is to outright disprove climate change. Now, this is not to say that Lomborg's work has not been without error or issue, as is certainly the case, but that his political message is not one that merits a compression of categories in a polarized fashion.

Now its fair to critique environmental skepticism on the basis that it does not take certain aspects of climate change seriously enough, and that environmental skeptics actually inhibit any positive change in the technologies and policies that contribute to climate change. And this characterized Penn & Teller's position pretty well, and is perhaps where I disagree with them most. The episode really takes aim at the polarized nature of the discussion that exists without really grasping the complexities of the chemistry involved that do warrant some pretty serious reassessment in our activities. If we look at Methane saturation in the high frequency band of the UV radiation, it gives us some pretty serious reasons for concern. This is, of course, not true for all environmental skeptics as Lomborg himself promotes continued and increased investment in Green Energy as a way to curb continued human contribution to climate change.

Taken with the real message of the episode and the content of some of their prime guests (not to mention the fact that Penn & Teller call themselves Environmental Skeptics) it becomes clear that we are capable of two conclusions. 1) It is an unfair characterization to call the duo "global warming denialists" considering that their offical position and the subject matter of their episode is direct at the hysterics in the existing discussion and 2) to compress their position with global warming denialism ignores the very real distinctions that exist between environmental skepticism and global warming denialism. We do have a fair platform from which to criticize the episode and the position, that they are not taking some scientific evidence seriously enough and that their position inhibits some meaningful change in our behaviors, but it is fundamentally incorrect to compress their position with that of global warming denialism.

"it is fundamentally incorrect to compress their position with that of global warming denialism."

Yep.

Now shut the fuck up Ed. Everyone is tired of you.