A Look at Environmentalism-Penn and Teller Screw Up Bigtime

[TheSchorsch719]

Global warming is Bullshit

[illustriouschin]

He is whispering because he doesn't want to disturb somebody he is living with, it is not that hard to figure out.

[rebeccataylor03]

I would take you seriously if only you weren't so creepy.

Seriously, why the whispering? Were you afraid that big brother was going to hear you?

[gary7infiltrator]

Why are you whispering?

I would have listened all the way through to hear your arguments, but I got too annoyed with straining to hear you, even with my speakers cranked all the way up.

[mothball667]

ur so sull of it

[Finnbar01]

Global warming is happening and they is nothing we can do about it. It is not our fault. It is a natural phonomenon. Here some facts. the hottest year over the last 100 years was 1934 and not 1998. The hotest decade was the 1930's and not the 1990's. Since 1998 to present day the planet's temperature hasn't increase yet C02 has. Global warming is a hoax.

[switche]

You also provided two quotes that were perfectly reasonable to say in 2003. The world had not decided on this yet in 2003, even if you had, and a lot of other very different, good points were made as well. Genetic fallacy. Such a term is simply dismissing criticism of your own points, and are further deterrents to hearing you out. I am telling you that you have failed to make a point with this video, and you use that as a platform to promote your others? FYI: Check the links in the vid info.

[aikiboy1111111]

Yes. But your original point was, and I quote, "The BS episode was suggesting that environmental hysteria consists largely of misguided, sensationalist, young, white, middle class activists that display more anti-corporate sentiment than environmental fact, not suggesting that global warming is not happening." My point is that the episode was a blunder, both because of the fact that they hadn't quoted the scientists from the IPCC, AND because of the fact that Penn and Teller haven't made any

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) correction, admitting that global warming exists since that episode. Now if you happen to know of a correction they've made since that episode, great. Also, I've admitted that that particular source with the comparison was flawed. You missed that I mentioned to read the other peer-reviewed sources mentioned on that link. The talk about species extinction and logging were debunked in another article quoted off the same page, but from a different peer-reviewed journal. That's what I was

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) talking about. Oh, and one second, it appears I misplaced a link on the summary. Thanks for pointing that out. One moment.

[aikiboy1111111]

Ok. Sorry. The summary is corrected now. The other links I'm referring to are off the logicalscience(dot)com link. I apologize for the mishap, and thanks for the correction. As for my arguments against the episode, they still stand for a couple of reasons. 1. As I've already stated, there hasn't been any correction on global warming since the episode. They corrected the lung cancer error, they should have corrected this one. As for species surviving, see the peer-reviewed link off the second

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) link in the summary. That was number 2.

I do admit that the comparison was inappropriate by nature, but the other sources still provide considerable evidence against the points in the show. My concern is both that the show misrepresented the science pertaining to environmentalism, in part, but more importantly, that they have not issued any statements to say, "we are sure about global warming now." I also admit that environmentalists perhaps don't know what they are talking about in

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) video (sorry, that should read environmentalist groups). My point is still that the show did not interview any of the scientists who were actually researching global warming at the time, they didn't take into account all the peer-reviewed literature, and they haven't issued any corrections since that episode. Also, if I may quote you again, "...just that there is little motivation to trust your conclusions after supporting critique that resorts to such ridiculous analogies." It is a

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) use of the genetic fallacy, because saying that there is little motivation to trust my conclusions, after making one bad point, would therefore assume that all my other points are bad just because they came from me, since I made one bad point. Actually, considering it is taking out my conclusions outright from a single point, while having ignored the others, I'm not sure which fallacy it is most like here. Straw manning my attack for ignoring crucial points, fallacy of composition,

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) assuming that my conclusions (the whole) are wrong, because of one bad point (a part) or hasty generalization, assuming that all my points are bad because of one bad point. Now I do admit that it was inappropriate of me to support a source which had said that. I will also be sending a letter to Nature based on that, also, I thank you for having pointed out the glitch in links in the summary, it has been corrected. However, my points in general still stand, minus that comparison, and the

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) point still stands that that particular episode was a considerable blunder by Penn and Teller. They screwed up on that one bigtime, and they haven't corrected it. A couple of points in the show, the public's lack of understanding of science, and that environmental groups don't know what they were talking about, were correct, but the rest of it ignored large chunks of evidence, and despite our certainty on these issues now, no correction has been done since then. They have not

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) stated anywhere that their position has changed, since the new evidence has come in. (Unless you happen to know of a place they did amend it, at which point, please send me references to it.) Also, one final point. To point out that your argument used the genetic fallacy does not dismiss criticism of my own points. It just forces me to accept those points which actually are legitimate, like it was inappropriate for nature to make the comparison of Lombarg to a holocaust denier, and that

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) I had printed a link twice in the summary. I thank you for both those points, and I have ammended both. However, to decide that my conclusions could be suspect, which is effectively what one is doing by deciding there is little motivation to hear my conclusions after that one argument, is based on a fallacy.

[switche]

"Genetic Fallacy?" You cited what you call a credible peer review in "Nature" which equated Lomborg's argument to holocaust denial. I never said everything you said is wrong, just that there is little motivation to trust your conclusions after supporting critique that resorts to such ridiculous analogies. A prestigious peer review journal is not inherently infallible, and statements such as that are certainly a bigger "screw up" than Penn & Teller's.

[switche]

Also, Lomborg loudly announces the fact that Global Warming is happening, which many people love to just as loudly say he's not (interesting...), he's just not rapped up in the political debate. All he is concerned about, as an economist and statistician, is whether we're making rational decisions with our money in our actions, and where we could do more good. If you want to argue against Lomborg, argue against specific data as a scientist would. You don't seem to know much about him.

[aikiboy1111111]

I do. Look at my vid "Global Warming, A Look at the science behind it." Read the other sources quoted on that page which debunk the mathematical formulae he used. One of those sources might have been problematic, but the rest were straight from peer-reviewed literature. Also, check up the scientific american article debunking his work, on these specific data.

[switche]

Citing criticism against Lomborg that likens him to holocaust denial gives little motivation to read more from your criticism. The BS episode was suggesting that environmental hysteria consists largely of misguided, sensationalist, young, white, middle class activists that display more anti-corporate sentiment than environmental fact, not suggesting that global warming is not happening. I appreciate you presenting your own digest but you're basing it on points from BS that simply were not made.

[aikiboy1111111]

"Some scientists even doubt that global warming is happening..." straight from Penn's lips half way through the show. Also, just because ONE of the sources has a problem with it doesn't mean the rest there, or the rest quoted on my global warming videos, don't. Go to my username, type in "Global Warming" and read the summaries on my other vids. I do provide sources dealing with specific data.

[aikiboy1111111]

Also, one other thing. To suggest that one of the sources automatically decreases motivation to read my criticism or to say that my criticism is invalid based on that source is an example of the Genetic Fallacy, which states that just because a source did one bad point in its argument or has been known to make one bad argument, that all of the arguments coming from it must also be bad. Read all the sources referenced on the pages provided here, then also read the references on my other vids.

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) THEN say that the criticism is unfounded. Also, I'd like you to pay attention to two quotes by Penn, from the episode, which I have linked to here in the summary, "There are some scientists who say that global warming isn't even happenning..." and "...it's ok if environmentalists want to shift between global warming and global cooling, just remember that we are still collecting data, WE'RE NOT SURE YET..." (slightly paraphrased, but you can see it in the original episode). My concerns

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) are based on actual quotes from the episodes, and the lack of data provided on the show. The criticism I linked links to quite a few peer-reviewed articles. To overlook them purely because of one source quoted on that site, or to debunk my entire criticism based on that one reference, is again, the genetic fallacy, bad form, and one should continue reading the other sources. Then come back and we'll talk further, on technicals.