To me, this episode is less about whether or not global warming is actually occurring, and more about the kind of ineffective bullshit people are coming up with to "punish" or guilt people because of it.
With all the evidence and DISCLOSURE of FALSIFIED DATA concerning the IPCC report on global warming, it is obvious that global warming is a fear tactic no different from any religious dogma.
The simple fact is, TRUE science ALWAYS leaves room for correction. When Al Gore tried to convince the world "the debate is over", he immediately discredited himself, while spitting in the face of the scientific method.
@jackiedegracia Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. He told Wolf Blitzer in 1999 that he helped create the Internet by sponsoring several legislative inititiatives in the 1980's which funded the conversion of the military Arpanet into the civilian Internet. He (and other congressmen) created the Internet the way a company sponsors a sports team.
Regardless of who, quit acting like you have respect for anyone if it's so changeable that it can be undone by a point of view. Don't be a fanatic, you'll regret it in the end. And it's a lonely end, at that.
@jackiedegracia What makes you think I'm a fanatic? I said "the last thread of respect" in reference to Penn meaning that I found some of his stuff interesting, even though I disliked the methods employed on the show. I admit I'm quick to change my opinion about people who deny science such as creationists, antivac advocates etc, but Penn is such a loud mouth that you can only respect him when you agree. The time magazine reference was enough for me.
@samuraistrings Professor David Mason at Fairhaven College in 1972 had a book, Limits of Growth" from which he taught that by 2000 that 20% of the earth's population would be dead from pollution and all fossil fuels would be exhausted. This is not much different than the fabricated gloom and doom that is put into college students today.
@tnekkc I read an article in last months New Scientist that references "The limits to growth" which says: "..it is widely believed that Limits predicted collapse by 2000, yet in fact it made no such claim." and the book warns repeatedly: "None of these computer outputs is a prediction." There is a real problem with the way the media sensationalizes science, and it's important to distinguish what is hype and what is likely.
I don't believe in global warming or global cooling. I don't care what anyone has to say about it, you can send me proof of your ideas all you want, but I can just send you proof that I'm right too. The proof I send you still won't believe, and you will still argue. The proof you send to me, I will think the same thing, that it's crap and I will still argue. Their are certain topics out there that will always bring an argument. Some examples are Religion and Politics.
There is always, for almost every P&T Bullshit video I watch. A suggestion in the right hand list for a video titled "Why Girls Swallow". This show isn't about girls swallowing. So why the hell is it being suggested? Obnoxious.
ants have more of an effect on the environment than humans do. i read that the biomass of ants is more than all the other species of the world combined. we are NOTHING compared to ants. lol
@sethmusic But what do you mean by "effect"? Because you're right. Ants have a greater biomass than Humans, but that doesn't automatically mean they're having a greater effect. For example, ants don't harvest carbon that's been locked in the Earth's crust for millions of years and reintroduce it into the carbon cycle. Humans do.
This episode chooses to represent an actual scientific question with the lowest common denominator of intelligence.
If you look hard you can find idiots that agree with any opinion. What you shouldn't do is assume no one else is more intelligent than the idiots. You can't refute global warming by showing me a crazy lady and telling me she's crazy. The eco-therapy lady is a quack, but that doesn't mean that global warming is bullshit, it means she's full of shit. I don't like this episode.
i dunno if i can agree with this, the mass majority of scientists say that there is without a doubt that the world is heating up.. and yes, 30 years ago it was heating up too, and its heating up even more, we've broken THOSE records, all that other crap is bullshit, also look at the weathermans chart, its OBVIOUSLY increasing and he blatently lies "oh you can see tht it hasnt changed", ya ok
global warming is a sham, we all know that. what is the main issue here is "global destabilisation", which, happens periodically like mentioned in the video regarding the solar sun spot cycle....we can change and help stop the destruction of our environment through common sense, but don't waste your money buying into the global warming scam, send it to me if you feel the need to contribute to change, I need a humvee and a private jet. pm me with donations
People are misunderstanding Bullshit. Penn and Teller themselves say to always take everything they show with a grain of salt and that they themselves are often full of bullshit. The point is to give you some much needed skepticism. And no matter what side of the GW debate you fall on we should all agree that the vast majority of us don't know what the fuck we're talking about. That goes for the Fox news tards or those dopes on the street acting like Gore was Captain Planet himself.
@Kagemusha08 It is apparent that Penn & Teller only respect science and skepticism when it doesn't conflict with their political ideology. This episode is one example, but even neglecting that, the show doesn't seem to inspire skepticism in its fans either. I can't tell you how many times that I've seen an episode of Bullshit referenced in lieu of an argument. That's not skepticism, it's the affirmation of bias through dogma...
@Kagemusha08 ... And your comment also seems to imply that the evidence supporting climate change and the evidence against climate change stand on equal footing. They most certainly do not. The results are in. Global warming is happening and the only reason something hasn't already been done about it is because the general public are constantly being urged to ignore the science by smart-but-wrong people like Penn & Teller, who are desperately clinging to their ideology.
@zebraman60 What evidence is there that this current trend is part of a cycle? What is the proposed mechanism behind this cycle? What peer-reviewed scientific publications support the hypothesis? I've heard this claim many times (always from non-scientists,) but I've yet to see any evidence that supports it exclusively.
@F1NGER well, im not gonna do the research for you. i have done it for myself. and basically, we have the (short, as it may be) recorded history of temps around earth. they go up and down over many decades. there is evidence in the fossil record and ice/dirt core samples, which show the temps went very high, then down multiple times during the last 250,000 yrs alone. it has alot to do with the orbital change, the pole shifts, and frankly alot more than i can get into here. research it ;)
@zebraman60 So you're not arguing for some regular, cyclical, event like El Nino and La Nina. You're simply saying "The climate has changed naturally in the past, therefore humans can't be changing it now." That's bad logic. It's called the naturalistic fallacy. What evidence is there that this CURRENT trend is the result of orbital change, a pole shift, or some other natural process?
And google the phrase "burden of proof" before you complain about having to back up your own assertions.
@F1NGER lol, yep, youre a genius :) i love how you dont know any of the facts, and dont have any personal research, BUT my backed claims are wrong. why exactly SHOULD we think we causing it now. when i was younger, lightning was an amazing thing to me. then one day, when it was raining out, i was chewing gum, and BOOM! lightning and thunder started. so from that day on, i always just assumed that people chewing gum caused lightning. i mean, why SHOULDNT i think that...? (troll)
@zebraman60 How am I supposed to know that your claims are backed? You haven't given any sources! Am I supposed to just take your word for it?
There's a lot of information out there and much of it is wrong. So simply making a vague gesture towards the internet instead of providing your specific source is not only impractical, but lazy on your part. YOU made a claim, I asked for evidence. The burden of proof is on YOU to support YOUR claim. This is how intelligent discussions are carried out.
@F1NGER exactly! thats why you HAVE TO DO YOUR OWN, IN DEPTH RESEARCH. i could quote sources, but it dont matter, you wont believe them, unless you find it out for yourself. i hate how ignorant humanity has become....lol. IM the lazy one :) im the only one between the 2 of us whos DONE RESEARCH. heres some sources that i used in my reseach: the studies done from 2006-2009 in NYU (dep. of geology); the hamilton study (england) of earths temperature as related to the core cycles, 1994-2009
@zebraman60 You seem to be assuming that I haven't done any research at all on the subject. Quite the contrary. I just haven't read any studies that support your claim. And regardless of what you've already decided about me, I would be interested to read any that do.
... But it seems I'm having trouble finding those studies you mentioned. Can you remember the names of the lead researchers (or better yet, paste a link to them in a pm and send it to me, if you can?) Thank you.
@F1NGER well, i have read the studies on both sides. and theres just more evidence on the anti side, than the pro side. just type the studies into google they come up
@zebraman60 The only relevant study I was able to find using your.. vague references was a 2009 CCSP study titled "Reanalysis of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features..."
As far as I can tell, it does not deny an anthropocentric cause for the current warming trend. The most it does is dispute the cause of current droughts, but that point is contested in a review of the study by the National Acadamy of Sciences. If you have something better, please provide a more specific citation.
@zebraman60 even doing your own research isn't guaranteed conclusive evidence either way, it all depends on who has done the initial research and who they were being paid by, or what they were hoping to get out of it through personal gain. ie, doctorate, Ph.D., cushy pension plan etc. etc......over 70% of all statistics are made up
@F1NGER but i guarantee, that you wont look into them. or you will, then say theyre wrong, because theyre not biased to your already formed opinion (you probably dont remember in the 1970's, when everyone thought global cooling was a phenomena, and that people were behind it also)
@zebraman60 except again informed people, like the majority of climate scientists who were already predicting warming. But hey if the people you hung out with were that stupid then whatever. Should have been pretty obvious that it wasn't true since Time didn't cite anyone.
@TrueMetis first- Time, in the 70's, published many articles on global cooling. (if you lived back then, youd know). 2nd, i think its dumb that you get your news only from Time magazine. and yes, global cooling was taken as seriously back then as warming today. there were all kinds of plans, nasa and the govnment were having a crisis, but then in the late 80's they realized that the planet goes thru natural fluctuations. all thru recorded history. and yes, we DO know this for a fact.
@zebraman60 No it wasn't the vast majority of studies done indicated warming not cooling, and those that did indicate cooling were uncertain. I don't care how many articles Time wrote on the subject since it isn't peer-reviewed and even the specific article in question said "Some scientists... think that the cooling trend may be only temporary". Yes the world goes though natural fluctuations but we can and have taken those into account and they don't explain current warming.
@SigurdHeathen If you think so, then go ahead and point out where the science is wrong. I try to seek out and eliminate all errors in my understanding of the universe. If the Earth isn't warming, then show the evidence that explains why global temperature data is wrong. If warming is occurring, but can be attributed to natural process, then show the evidence supporting that hypothesis exclusively. As it stands, the best explanation for all the evidence is the anthropogenic climate change model.
I saw this... and unless you are dumb as hell and haven't read about it.. you might fall for it...The first information given is true he just doesn't know in what way... The global warming will cause an ice age in the northern europe and around the sibirian latitude because the masses of water coming from the ice at the northpole will break the gulf stream. Plus it has been 10k years since the last ice age. A new age is simply dawning in a few 100 years. Much for a man but not for the earth!
@YouLoseByDefault Oh i'm a dumbass? Well I'm atleast now the dumbshit redneck who finally finds a video where they say that his v8 tractor doesn't destroy the environment after all... It's to bad America is so controlled by money and television... people there seem to belive in everything they see on the tele...a twisted country i say... there are good peoples there aswell though...like Ron Paul in his video where he predicted events thrue out 2002 - 2011.
@oJackOfSpades Apparently you are even stupider than you sound.
Kid, you have zero clue when it comes to reality. So I would adise you to shut the fuck up now, before you make yourself look like a fool. Which, in fact, you arleady have.
Planets have something called "weather cycles". You might want to grow a brainstem prior to commenting. You see, being under 30 means you are a fucking immature moron who needs a bit of life experience behind ya. Thanks for playing!
@YouLoseByDefault I'm luckely not even American I think you can tell by my spelling... Anyways pollution into air and waterways is a big problem no matter if you think it's facts or fake... but pollution does not only cause global warming, but also acidification in lakes and oceans and the combustion of coal also emits pollution to the air which isn't good for humans and other animals, to breathe if you would directly inhale them... just face the facts we're destroying the environment!
@YouLoseByDefault BUT VENUS IS CLOSER TO THE SUN! The water went so warm that big clouds started to surround the surface of Venus. After a while these clouds worked as a greenhouse (it would keep the heat within it's clouds and wouldn't let the solar beems bounce out again)... you truly are missguided and to be honest not very smart either. You don't know anything:O I'm suprised!
i agree the world warming, but the world has also cooled in the past. It's entirely possible that over thousands of years the world warms and cools just like the seasons in a year. There are people making alot of money with their fear-mongering. Sounds to me like business as usual, scare people to make money.
@wolfganong333 The Earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past, yes. But those changes usually took thousands of years while the current warming trend has happened in only a few decades. Changes this sudden usually have a dramatic cause and, as it stands, the only possible cause is our industrial burning of fossil fuels. There is no evidence that it is part of some natural cycle, neither is there evidence that the climate will correct itself if things keep going the way they are.
Changes are random. That means they can take thousands of years, hundreds of years, dozens of years, a few months, a couple of days, or a few fucking seconds.
The phrase "global warming" was invented by clueless humans with too much fucking internet connectivity.
Expand solar, wind and geothermal energies to rapidly achieve energy independence from oil.
"(implied) New ice age coming in 1974 but Global warming today? What the hell happened?"
Congress created the EPA to enforce draconian environmental laws including the power to jail polluters w/o due process resulting in the radical reduction of smog which was threatening a new ice age but unfortunately we didn't deal with the CO2 which causes global warming.
@mjh012363 So you think the GLOBAL Ice Age predicted in the 70's and blamed on air pollution was avoided due to the laws in ONE industrial nation??
And thats despite the industrialisation of Asia (in particular China/India) where there are next to no air pollution laws and airbourne particle pollution vastly out strips the decline in the west?
As the big man said - " That dog won't hunt monsignor..."
@krackersdave "So you think the GLOBAL Ice Age predicted in the 70's and blamed on air pollution was avoided due to the laws in ONE industrial nation?"
Um.. Europe also passed such laws and cleaned up their air too.
"And thats despite the industrialisation of Asia.. airbourne particle pollution vastly out strips the decline in the west?"
Actually Asia's consumption of fossil fuels is only a fraction of US'.. BTW the Asian Brown Cloud DOES lower temps in the REGION.
@mjh012363 No - Asia vastly outstrips the west for fuel consumption and pollution produced both in air particles and even CO2 (china 21% of the worlds co2 - the US 20 - add in the rest of asia and the numbers are clear) Have a look at Nasa's global air pollution map - China and India are clearly the largest producers in the world.
The brown could is a localised weather phenomenon and the subject is climate not weather (cont)
@krackersdave "No - Asia vastly outstrips the west for fuel consumption ..."
Source? Mine was "The Carbon Free Economy." Yes if Asia continues to expand coal production and the US/West continues to reduce emissions then they will out pace US/West.
"The brown could (sic) is a localised weather phenomenon and the subject is climate not weather "
And? If the US and Europe didn't clean up our particulates then it would be global know wouldn't it.
@krackersdave "...the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise. According to Beate Liepert, "We lived in a global warming plus a global dimming world and now we are taking out global dimming. So we end up with the global warming world, which will be much worse than we thought it will be, much hotter."" Wikipedia: "Global Dimming"
@mjh012363 cont) Bottom line - you stated the Ice Age prediction was only averted due to action by the EPA in reducing airbourne particulate matter. Even if you include Europe in this it's obvious that global production of airbourne particulate matter has still rocketed globally and yet no Ice Age...
BTW it's not the EPA that reduced pollution in the US.... The companies just sacked the staff and moved the factories to Asia.
@krackersdave "Even if you include Europe in this it's obvious that global production of airbourne particulate matter has still rocketed globally and yet no Ice Age..."
Source?
"The companies just sacked the staff and moved the factories to Asia."
Even if true the millions of cars were never moved to China. It was the automobiles that were always the major contributor of pollution.
@mjh012363 you haven't quoted any science. Explain your comment that reduction in aerosol pollution in the US avoided an Ice Age when the industrialisation of Asia has resulted in a massive increase in overall air particulate pollution in the same timeframe.
You need to explain this basic flaw in your argument or your point fails the logic test.
Unfortunately scientists don't work on a set wage. They are funded by the government or by companies. If the company needs scientists to find proof of global warming they will give the scientists a wage to find that proof. It's not an objective system and it does lead to bias and brushing facts under the rug. Scientific 'evidence' and 'proof' is not that reliable when it comes to issues like this.
If global warming is a threat I am convinced that it's a modern man made occurence. Look up the name Nikola Tesla for further information. He was Russian scientist who was conducting weather modifications in the 1940's. In Vietnam, the US Armed Forces attempted to use climate warfare during Operation Popeye. I don't know if HAARP is currently doing such activities but it wouldn't suprise me. According to a source from a recent RT report, Russia is still modifying weather in our modern age.
The sun doesn't really warm the earth. The sun in conjuction with the greenhouse effect does. It's the end of January here in the midwest and for the first time in 57 years of my life it hasn't snowed but one tiny dusting.
Hmm.. The sun warms the Earth.. maybe the sun and its varying activity has something to do with it? Oh wait.. that's EXACTLY how it works.. The Earth may be warming, but it's a load of arrogant bullshit to think that we're completely responsible for it.
Even if global warming is "bullshit" (which it fucking isn't) does that mean we should carry on nonchalantly until our water is undrinkable, our air is posionous, and our forests, grasslands, and oceans are rendered to nothing more than dumps? Penn and Teller are right about a lot of things but they are beyond wrong if their willing to say global warming is non-existant.
when my dad was in school, what Penn quoted was considered the truth as current as 1982. when I was in 3rd grade the goverment said that there would be no oil left by 1999. Gas was $1/gal when i turned 16 in 1999.
Global warming is bullshit. the earth goes through climate changes all the time. the was a mini ice age that lasted until the 1800s. The current enviroment bs is nothing more then a scheme to make money.
The graph at 4:27 stops in 2000, just before solar activity dips down again and global temperatures continue shooting up (and the data showing this was easily available in 2008, when this episode aired.) So John Coleman is intentionally ignoring data that supports the climate change model. What the data shows is that while solar activity accounts for past climate change, it cannot account for the current warming trend.
@maluorno Protip. When you make scientific assertion and someone asks you for your source, they're usually looking for something a little more specific than "the news."
Find one study, preferably peer-reviewed, that shows the cooling trend you spoke of. A neat trick you can try is to go to one of those popular news articles you're talking about, then look at the name of the study they're citing and what journal it was published in. If they don't have the source, find one that does. Good luck.
@F1NGER - I didn't know you wanted me to do all your investigating for you. Maybe you could do a little digging for yourself and find out who started the whole 'carbon credit' scam and take a closer look at Al Gore's 600,000 - year graph outlining the earth's climate history based on ice core samples. It turns out that increases in carbon in the atmosphere FOLLOW increases in overall global temps by almost 1000 years.
@maluorno You made a claim, so the burden of backing up that claim is on you. I don't care what Al Gore has to say. He's not a scientist. I care what scientists have to say.
Even Richard Muller, a global warming skeptic who spent the past two years gathering massive amounts of temperature data in an attempt to disprove global warming, was forced to agree with mainstream climate scientists that the Earth is warming.
So I ask again. Can you find one study showing a cooling trend?
The Time magazine article Penn is quoting was a sensationalist article about a hypothesis that never gained much support, let alone a scientific consensus as strong as the current climate change model has. To equate the two is to show their profound ignorance of the subject. If you want to know what's going on with the climate, talk to climatologists. Al Gore is not a climatologist. A TV watherman is not a climatologist. NOT ONE relevant scientist was interviewed in this episode.
Overall temparatures will fluctuate over time and there's no evidence that humans caused it and we shouldn't be paying taxes to use the very air it's just a cash grab.
To be honest, he looked like he was about to laugh so I don't think he was being serious. On a side note your homophobic and are probably secretly gay.
Nice try. If you use 'queer' as a noun to describe someone, your calling them gay, plain and simple. If you had used it as an adjective then you might have an argument, but you didn't.
Yes it can be a noun or adjective, I never said anything contrary to that. I was saying that when you call someone a queer your calling them gay, or at the very least that's what everyone is going to assume your saying. Also I'm from England and calling SOMEONE queer is exactly the same. It's different if you say, for instance, "that's queer" but that's not what he said.
Wow first bull shit episode I have found to be quite full of bullshit. Not one scientist. I guess it was showing the bullshit of the fear mongering. But the science of warming is sound, not world ending, just significant. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its pretty basic science, you can model it and demonstrate it easily. It is an interesting debate, though.
there are actually very lucrative economic opportunities we can gain as a species by "going green".
because the manner in which green technology generates energy and/or saves it, it has greater longevity in terms of jobs than fossil fuel- based technology.
I'm not sure if I agree with them here but they bring up nice facts. The earth IS coming out of and its getting hotter that's how we rolll. Global emissions probably aren't doing the earth any good but they are over hyped by a lot of politicians. Then there's the absolute alarmists who say things like "Global warming could kill us within one hundred years" < That's just absolute BULLSHIT. I think we need to cut down on our reliance on fossil fuels though, but mostly for economic reasons.
Isn't the vast majority of the greenhouse effect naturally caused? Water vapor makes up 2/3 of the green house effect and it's almost entirely natural.
@1451tyler No it isnt. Global warming has been happening for billions of years and is still happening. Climates always change, it has nothing to do with us.
It's great to be skpetical, but this show NEVER does a good job of backing up it's claims with true facts and sound logic. Even when I agree with their message, I can't help but to feel intellectually cheated by how nil-brained and poorly constructed this program is.
How exactly does saying humanity only contributes about 3% of the carbon in the atmosphere discredit global warming? That 3%, or the growth of that 3%, could be what causes the glass to overflow. Even though the Sun burns at several thousands of degrees, a one degree increase would have a huge impact on the Earth.
Thinking of atmospheric carbons in big percentages versus little percentages is a fallacy.
I haven't watched yet, but I already know the show itself is bullshit if the description box is accurate. You know why? Because there's no controversy in the scientific community.
@leerman22 so with your flawless logic mercury should be boiling right now? It's so much closer than Venus. But sadly that's absolutely false. Mercury is the coldest inner planet, colder than mars, the farthest inner planet. Coincidentally mercury has one of the thinnest atmospheres in the solar system. And Venus has an extremely thick one. Is it starting to make sense?
Normally I agree with penn and teller, but not here. I don't think that an old ass weatherman is much of an authority on climatology. The greenhouse affect is true, it's been proven and studied on other planets, Venus for example. The atmosphere is made almost entirely of CO2 and is almost 1,000 degrees, because greenhouse gases let infrared light in, but not letting any out. This shouldn't even be a debate.
@funcpl2741054 I agree, in fact I practically have no idea who Al Gore is. However, Global Warming is real.
I'm glad they got the figure of human emissions vs natural emissions right, but the biggest emissions of CO2 comes from the ocean with a whopping 43%. (just look up the human and natural emissions and do the maths).
So far P&T are a little less bullshittier in this ep than I thought, but they're still wrong.
The skeptics among the scientific community have been silenced. Wait 10 years, then we'll see where this little hoax stands in the broad scope of history.
It isn't the scientists preaching this shit, it's the politicians and bimbo celebrities. Gore is a hypocrite who nearly became President. Ha ha American, he nearly became your President. Global Warming/Climate Change is a scam, a lie, a hoax; and the biggest one in the history of Mankind.
I also recemmend people look at the temperatures over a 20.000, 10.000, 2000, 1000, or even 500 year period and you'd realize there is absolutely nothing special about recent global warming.
To me, this episode is less about whether or not global warming is actually occurring, and more about the kind of ineffective bullshit people are coming up with to "punish" or guilt people because of it.
KajexFiredrake 3 days ago
Penn and Teller need to get a Nobel prize for Bull Shit
pcgamernum1 5 days ago
Thanks for posting! Loooove me some BULL SHIT!
roadmasterestate 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
With all the evidence and DISCLOSURE of FALSIFIED DATA concerning the IPCC report on global warming, it is obvious that global warming is a fear tactic no different from any religious dogma.
The simple fact is, TRUE science ALWAYS leaves room for correction. When Al Gore tried to convince the world "the debate is over", he immediately discredited himself, while spitting in the face of the scientific method.
MatthewRider1 1 week ago
I agree that carbon offsets are B.S. but Global Warming is a reality.
Not2Sane 1 week ago
Manbearpig is super serial! I invented the internet, everyone is super stoked on me!...
jackiedegracia 1 week ago
@jackiedegracia Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. He told Wolf Blitzer in 1999 that he helped create the Internet by sponsoring several legislative inititiatives in the 1980's which funded the conversion of the military Arpanet into the civilian Internet. He (and other congressmen) created the Internet the way a company sponsors a sports team.
Scyllax 4 days ago
I just lost the last thread of respect I had for this dickhead. I can't believe they have him speak at rallies for reason.
samuraistrings 1 week ago
@samuraistrings
Which dickhead?
Regardless of who, quit acting like you have respect for anyone if it's so changeable that it can be undone by a point of view. Don't be a fanatic, you'll regret it in the end. And it's a lonely end, at that.
jackiedegracia 1 week ago
@jackiedegracia What makes you think I'm a fanatic? I said "the last thread of respect" in reference to Penn meaning that I found some of his stuff interesting, even though I disliked the methods employed on the show. I admit I'm quick to change my opinion about people who deny science such as creationists, antivac advocates etc, but Penn is such a loud mouth that you can only respect him when you agree. The time magazine reference was enough for me.
samuraistrings 1 week ago
@samuraistrings
Fanatic idealism will be the death of humanity long before any climate change happens.
jackiedegracia 1 week ago
@jackiedegracia Climate change is happening.
samuraistrings 1 week ago
Fuck that, i'd want a moonrock instead.
helljumpr5150 1 week ago
Time Magazine, a sterling, peer-reviewed scientific journal. If they can't get it right, no one can!
GlorifiedTruth 1 week ago 4
@GlorifiedTruth Haha yeah which spoke of an extremely minority view even at that time.
samuraistrings 1 week ago
Just live your life
StacksNyc80 1 week ago
In college in 1971 we were taught that by 2000 that 20% of the earth's would be dead from pollution and all fossil fuel would be gone.
When I got out, I built a super insulated solar home and recycled everything before it was a public service.
Then Clinton signed the 1994 crime bill, a direct attack on my rifles, and I realized I had been duped.
tnekkc 2 weeks ago
@tnekkc May I ask who taught you this, and what their sources were?
samuraistrings 1 week ago
@samuraistrings Professor David Mason at Fairhaven College in 1972 had a book, Limits of Growth" from which he taught that by 2000 that 20% of the earth's population would be dead from pollution and all fossil fuels would be exhausted. This is not much different than the fabricated gloom and doom that is put into college students today.
tnekkc 1 week ago
@tnekkc I read an article in last months New Scientist that references "The limits to growth" which says: "..it is widely believed that Limits predicted collapse by 2000, yet in fact it made no such claim." and the book warns repeatedly: "None of these computer outputs is a prediction." There is a real problem with the way the media sensationalizes science, and it's important to distinguish what is hype and what is likely.
samuraistrings 1 week ago
@samuraistrings
I think you are right.
The professor did not quote the book, he thumped it like a bible and his eco sermon contained the fire and brim stone prophecies.
The book was just a bunch of graphs... remembering 1971-1972.
tnekkc 1 week ago
I don't believe in global warming or global cooling. I don't care what anyone has to say about it, you can send me proof of your ideas all you want, but I can just send you proof that I'm right too. The proof I send you still won't believe, and you will still argue. The proof you send to me, I will think the same thing, that it's crap and I will still argue. Their are certain topics out there that will always bring an argument. Some examples are Religion and Politics.
ss17goku 2 weeks ago
hah. I knew these two would step on liberal's toes eventually
MrFrost227 2 weeks ago
Too bad, its only part 1 or else I was thinking of watching this video about a girl liking foreskin or whatnot thats on the related video list!
Wtf....
saznrai 2 weeks ago
There is always, for almost every P&T Bullshit video I watch. A suggestion in the right hand list for a video titled "Why Girls Swallow". This show isn't about girls swallowing. So why the hell is it being suggested? Obnoxious.
eklera 2 weeks ago
he's super cereal!
sethmusic 2 weeks ago
ants have more of an effect on the environment than humans do. i read that the biomass of ants is more than all the other species of the world combined. we are NOTHING compared to ants. lol
sethmusic 2 weeks ago
@sethmusic But what do you mean by "effect"? Because you're right. Ants have a greater biomass than Humans, but that doesn't automatically mean they're having a greater effect. For example, ants don't harvest carbon that's been locked in the Earth's crust for millions of years and reintroduce it into the carbon cycle. Humans do.
F1NGER 2 weeks ago
This episode chooses to represent an actual scientific question with the lowest common denominator of intelligence.
If you look hard you can find idiots that agree with any opinion. What you shouldn't do is assume no one else is more intelligent than the idiots. You can't refute global warming by showing me a crazy lady and telling me she's crazy. The eco-therapy lady is a quack, but that doesn't mean that global warming is bullshit, it means she's full of shit. I don't like this episode.
Bordellify 2 weeks ago
how come so many of the links on the right hand side are about tits bums and willies?
scruntysandwich 2 weeks ago
Who's gonna watch Robotic Vagina next?
AdrianGrave 2 weeks ago 26
@AdrianGrave I was actually thinking about finding out why the chick loves uncircumsised penis
17onamission17 2 weeks ago
It's really too bad that americans are so fucked in the head. Perhaps if they weren't, their precious country wouldn't be fucking bankrupt right now.
Like, oops.
Next?
AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
YouLoseByDefault 2 weeks ago
@YouLoseByDefault - Agreed, I'm embarrassed for my country. I really want to move when I can.
Critic863 2 weeks ago
i dunno if i can agree with this, the mass majority of scientists say that there is without a doubt that the world is heating up.. and yes, 30 years ago it was heating up too, and its heating up even more, we've broken THOSE records, all that other crap is bullshit, also look at the weathermans chart, its OBVIOUSLY increasing and he blatently lies "oh you can see tht it hasnt changed", ya ok
185tiff 2 weeks ago
global warming is a sham, we all know that. what is the main issue here is "global destabilisation", which, happens periodically like mentioned in the video regarding the solar sun spot cycle....we can change and help stop the destruction of our environment through common sense, but don't waste your money buying into the global warming scam, send it to me if you feel the need to contribute to change, I need a humvee and a private jet. pm me with donations
binkiie4dictator 2 weeks ago
People are misunderstanding Bullshit. Penn and Teller themselves say to always take everything they show with a grain of salt and that they themselves are often full of bullshit. The point is to give you some much needed skepticism. And no matter what side of the GW debate you fall on we should all agree that the vast majority of us don't know what the fuck we're talking about. That goes for the Fox news tards or those dopes on the street acting like Gore was Captain Planet himself.
Kagemusha08 3 weeks ago
@Kagemusha08 It is apparent that Penn & Teller only respect science and skepticism when it doesn't conflict with their political ideology. This episode is one example, but even neglecting that, the show doesn't seem to inspire skepticism in its fans either. I can't tell you how many times that I've seen an episode of Bullshit referenced in lieu of an argument. That's not skepticism, it's the affirmation of bias through dogma...
F1NGER 3 weeks ago
@Kagemusha08 ... And your comment also seems to imply that the evidence supporting climate change and the evidence against climate change stand on equal footing. They most certainly do not. The results are in. Global warming is happening and the only reason something hasn't already been done about it is because the general public are constantly being urged to ignore the science by smart-but-wrong people like Penn & Teller, who are desperately clinging to their ideology.
F1NGER 3 weeks ago
@F1NGER youre not informed. you knwo the earth goes thru these phases, right?
zebraman60 3 weeks ago
@zebraman60 What evidence is there that this current trend is part of a cycle? What is the proposed mechanism behind this cycle? What peer-reviewed scientific publications support the hypothesis? I've heard this claim many times (always from non-scientists,) but I've yet to see any evidence that supports it exclusively.
F1NGER 3 weeks ago
@F1NGER well, im not gonna do the research for you. i have done it for myself. and basically, we have the (short, as it may be) recorded history of temps around earth. they go up and down over many decades. there is evidence in the fossil record and ice/dirt core samples, which show the temps went very high, then down multiple times during the last 250,000 yrs alone. it has alot to do with the orbital change, the pole shifts, and frankly alot more than i can get into here. research it ;)
zebraman60 3 weeks ago
@zebraman60 So you're not arguing for some regular, cyclical, event like El Nino and La Nina. You're simply saying "The climate has changed naturally in the past, therefore humans can't be changing it now." That's bad logic. It's called the naturalistic fallacy. What evidence is there that this CURRENT trend is the result of orbital change, a pole shift, or some other natural process?
And google the phrase "burden of proof" before you complain about having to back up your own assertions.
F1NGER 3 weeks ago
@F1NGER lol, yep, youre a genius :) i love how you dont know any of the facts, and dont have any personal research, BUT my backed claims are wrong. why exactly SHOULD we think we causing it now. when i was younger, lightning was an amazing thing to me. then one day, when it was raining out, i was chewing gum, and BOOM! lightning and thunder started. so from that day on, i always just assumed that people chewing gum caused lightning. i mean, why SHOULDNT i think that...? (troll)
zebraman60 3 weeks ago
@zebraman60 How am I supposed to know that your claims are backed? You haven't given any sources! Am I supposed to just take your word for it?
There's a lot of information out there and much of it is wrong. So simply making a vague gesture towards the internet instead of providing your specific source is not only impractical, but lazy on your part. YOU made a claim, I asked for evidence. The burden of proof is on YOU to support YOUR claim. This is how intelligent discussions are carried out.
F1NGER 3 weeks ago
@F1NGER exactly! thats why you HAVE TO DO YOUR OWN, IN DEPTH RESEARCH. i could quote sources, but it dont matter, you wont believe them, unless you find it out for yourself. i hate how ignorant humanity has become....lol. IM the lazy one :) im the only one between the 2 of us whos DONE RESEARCH. heres some sources that i used in my reseach: the studies done from 2006-2009 in NYU (dep. of geology); the hamilton study (england) of earths temperature as related to the core cycles, 1994-2009
zebraman60 3 weeks ago
@zebraman60 You seem to be assuming that I haven't done any research at all on the subject. Quite the contrary. I just haven't read any studies that support your claim. And regardless of what you've already decided about me, I would be interested to read any that do.
... But it seems I'm having trouble finding those studies you mentioned. Can you remember the names of the lead researchers (or better yet, paste a link to them in a pm and send it to me, if you can?) Thank you.
F1NGER 3 weeks ago
@F1NGER well, i have read the studies on both sides. and theres just more evidence on the anti side, than the pro side. just type the studies into google they come up
zebraman60 3 weeks ago
@zebraman60 The only relevant study I was able to find using your.. vague references was a 2009 CCSP study titled "Reanalysis of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features..."
As far as I can tell, it does not deny an anthropocentric cause for the current warming trend. The most it does is dispute the cause of current droughts, but that point is contested in a review of the study by the National Acadamy of Sciences. If you have something better, please provide a more specific citation.
F1NGER 2 weeks ago
@zebraman60 even doing your own research isn't guaranteed conclusive evidence either way, it all depends on who has done the initial research and who they were being paid by, or what they were hoping to get out of it through personal gain. ie, doctorate, Ph.D., cushy pension plan etc. etc......over 70% of all statistics are made up
binkiie4dictator 2 weeks ago
@F1NGER but i guarantee, that you wont look into them. or you will, then say theyre wrong, because theyre not biased to your already formed opinion (you probably dont remember in the 1970's, when everyone thought global cooling was a phenomena, and that people were behind it also)
zebraman60 3 weeks ago
@zebraman60 If you actually think people (at least informed people) thought global cooling was a thing in the 70's you've bought into a myth.
TrueMetis 2 weeks ago
@TrueMetis lol. i take it you werent around in the 70's, then. EVERYONE and their mother took it seriously.
zebraman60 2 weeks ago
@zebraman60 except again informed people, like the majority of climate scientists who were already predicting warming. But hey if the people you hung out with were that stupid then whatever. Should have been pretty obvious that it wasn't true since Time didn't cite anyone.
TrueMetis 2 weeks ago
@TrueMetis first- Time, in the 70's, published many articles on global cooling. (if you lived back then, youd know). 2nd, i think its dumb that you get your news only from Time magazine. and yes, global cooling was taken as seriously back then as warming today. there were all kinds of plans, nasa and the govnment were having a crisis, but then in the late 80's they realized that the planet goes thru natural fluctuations. all thru recorded history. and yes, we DO know this for a fact.
zebraman60 2 weeks ago
@zebraman60 No it wasn't the vast majority of studies done indicated warming not cooling, and those that did indicate cooling were uncertain. I don't care how many articles Time wrote on the subject since it isn't peer-reviewed and even the specific article in question said "Some scientists... think that the cooling trend may be only temporary". Yes the world goes though natural fluctuations but we can and have taken those into account and they don't explain current warming.
TrueMetis 2 weeks ago
@F1NGER
Sounds like you're the one with the dogma, desperately clinging to your ideology...
SigurdHeathen 2 weeks ago
@SigurdHeathen If you think so, then go ahead and point out where the science is wrong. I try to seek out and eliminate all errors in my understanding of the universe. If the Earth isn't warming, then show the evidence that explains why global temperature data is wrong. If warming is occurring, but can be attributed to natural process, then show the evidence supporting that hypothesis exclusively. As it stands, the best explanation for all the evidence is the anthropogenic climate change model.
F1NGER 2 weeks ago
I saw this... and unless you are dumb as hell and haven't read about it.. you might fall for it...The first information given is true he just doesn't know in what way... The global warming will cause an ice age in the northern europe and around the sibirian latitude because the masses of water coming from the ice at the northpole will break the gulf stream. Plus it has been 10k years since the last ice age. A new age is simply dawning in a few 100 years. Much for a man but not for the earth!
oJackOfSpades 3 weeks ago
@oJackOfSpades You are a fucking idiot.
Thanks for playing, dumbass.
YouLoseByDefault 3 weeks ago
@YouLoseByDefault Oh i'm a dumbass? Well I'm atleast now the dumbshit redneck who finally finds a video where they say that his v8 tractor doesn't destroy the environment after all... It's to bad America is so controlled by money and television... people there seem to belive in everything they see on the tele...a twisted country i say... there are good peoples there aswell though...like Ron Paul in his video where he predicted events thrue out 2002 - 2011.
oJackOfSpades 3 weeks ago
@oJackOfSpades Apparently you are even stupider than you sound.
Kid, you have zero clue when it comes to reality. So I would adise you to shut the fuck up now, before you make yourself look like a fool. Which, in fact, you arleady have.
Planets have something called "weather cycles". You might want to grow a brainstem prior to commenting. You see, being under 30 means you are a fucking immature moron who needs a bit of life experience behind ya. Thanks for playing!
YouLoseByDefault 2 weeks ago
@YouLoseByDefault Americans...once a redneck, always a redneck
oJackOfSpades 2 weeks ago
@oJackOfSpades Good thing I ain't one. How 'bout yourself, boy?
Thought so.
YouLoseByDefault 2 weeks ago
@YouLoseByDefault I'm luckely not even American I think you can tell by my spelling... Anyways pollution into air and waterways is a big problem no matter if you think it's facts or fake... but pollution does not only cause global warming, but also acidification in lakes and oceans and the combustion of coal also emits pollution to the air which isn't good for humans and other animals, to breathe if you would directly inhale them... just face the facts we're destroying the environment!
oJackOfSpades 2 weeks ago
@oJackOfSpades Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect.
It never had any fucking humans polluting it. It was a completely natural phenomenon.
Time to wakey wakey.
YouLoseByDefault 2 weeks ago
@YouLoseByDefault BUT VENUS IS CLOSER TO THE SUN! The water went so warm that big clouds started to surround the surface of Venus. After a while these clouds worked as a greenhouse (it would keep the heat within it's clouds and wouldn't let the solar beems bounce out again)... you truly are missguided and to be honest not very smart either. You don't know anything:O I'm suprised!
oJackOfSpades 2 weeks ago
Ok this is very funny, but lets face it they're not exactly at the forefront of the debate here.
DanielRKirk 3 weeks ago
i agree the world warming, but the world has also cooled in the past. It's entirely possible that over thousands of years the world warms and cools just like the seasons in a year. There are people making alot of money with their fear-mongering. Sounds to me like business as usual, scare people to make money.
wolfganong333 3 weeks ago
@wolfganong333 The Earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past, yes. But those changes usually took thousands of years while the current warming trend has happened in only a few decades. Changes this sudden usually have a dramatic cause and, as it stands, the only possible cause is our industrial burning of fossil fuels. There is no evidence that it is part of some natural cycle, neither is there evidence that the climate will correct itself if things keep going the way they are.
F1NGER 3 weeks ago
@F1NGER Wrong, dumbass.
Changes are random. That means they can take thousands of years, hundreds of years, dozens of years, a few months, a couple of days, or a few fucking seconds.
The phrase "global warming" was invented by clueless humans with too much fucking internet connectivity.
Have a nice day, dumbass.
YouLoseByDefault 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
mjh012363 3 weeks ago
"What are we going to do?"
Expand solar, wind and geothermal energies to rapidly achieve energy independence from oil.
"(implied) New ice age coming in 1974 but Global warming today? What the hell happened?"
Congress created the EPA to enforce draconian environmental laws including the power to jail polluters w/o due process resulting in the radical reduction of smog which was threatening a new ice age but unfortunately we didn't deal with the CO2 which causes global warming.
(con't)
mjh012363 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjh012363 "What the hell did Al Gore ever do for the environment?"
He ran for president.
mjh012363 3 weeks ago
@mjh012363 So you think the GLOBAL Ice Age predicted in the 70's and blamed on air pollution was avoided due to the laws in ONE industrial nation??
And thats despite the industrialisation of Asia (in particular China/India) where there are next to no air pollution laws and airbourne particle pollution vastly out strips the decline in the west?
As the big man said - " That dog won't hunt monsignor..."
krackersdave 3 weeks ago
@krackersdave "So you think the GLOBAL Ice Age predicted in the 70's and blamed on air pollution was avoided due to the laws in ONE industrial nation?"
Um.. Europe also passed such laws and cleaned up their air too.
"And thats despite the industrialisation of Asia.. airbourne particle pollution vastly out strips the decline in the west?"
Actually Asia's consumption of fossil fuels is only a fraction of US'.. BTW the Asian Brown Cloud DOES lower temps in the REGION.
mjh012363 3 weeks ago
@mjh012363 No - Asia vastly outstrips the west for fuel consumption and pollution produced both in air particles and even CO2 (china 21% of the worlds co2 - the US 20 - add in the rest of asia and the numbers are clear) Have a look at Nasa's global air pollution map - China and India are clearly the largest producers in the world.
The brown could is a localised weather phenomenon and the subject is climate not weather (cont)
krackersdave 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@krackersdave "No - Asia vastly outstrips the west for fuel consumption ..."
Source? Mine was "The Carbon Free Economy." Yes if Asia continues to expand coal production and the US/West continues to reduce emissions then they will out pace US/West.
"The brown could (sic) is a localised weather phenomenon and the subject is climate not weather "
And? If the US and Europe didn't clean up our particulates then it would be global know wouldn't it.
mjh012363 3 weeks ago
@krackersdave "...the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise. According to Beate Liepert, "We lived in a global warming plus a global dimming world and now we are taking out global dimming. So we end up with the global warming world, which will be much worse than we thought it will be, much hotter."" Wikipedia: "Global Dimming"
mjh012363 1 week ago
Comment removed
krackersdave 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjh012363 cont) Bottom line - you stated the Ice Age prediction was only averted due to action by the EPA in reducing airbourne particulate matter. Even if you include Europe in this it's obvious that global production of airbourne particulate matter has still rocketed globally and yet no Ice Age...
BTW it's not the EPA that reduced pollution in the US.... The companies just sacked the staff and moved the factories to Asia.
krackersdave 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@krackersdave "Even if you include Europe in this it's obvious that global production of airbourne particulate matter has still rocketed globally and yet no Ice Age..."
Source?
"The companies just sacked the staff and moved the factories to Asia."
Even if true the millions of cars were never moved to China. It was the automobiles that were always the major contributor of pollution.
mjh012363 3 weeks ago
Penn n Teller really do think global warming is bullshit! (*crushed*) :(
mjh012363 3 weeks ago
@mjh012363 No - they think MAN MADE global warming is bullshit... a Scam if you prefer.. and it is.
krackersdave 3 weeks ago
@krackersdave So you deny sound science?
mjh012363 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
krackersdave 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjh012363 you haven't quoted any science. Explain your comment that reduction in aerosol pollution in the US avoided an Ice Age when the industrialisation of Asia has resulted in a massive increase in overall air particulate pollution in the same timeframe.
You need to explain this basic flaw in your argument or your point fails the logic test.
krackersdave 3 weeks ago
Unfortunately scientists don't work on a set wage. They are funded by the government or by companies. If the company needs scientists to find proof of global warming they will give the scientists a wage to find that proof. It's not an objective system and it does lead to bias and brushing facts under the rug. Scientific 'evidence' and 'proof' is not that reliable when it comes to issues like this.
cookie852 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If global warming is a threat I am convinced that it's a modern man made occurence. Look up the name Nikola Tesla for further information. He was Russian scientist who was conducting weather modifications in the 1940's. In Vietnam, the US Armed Forces attempted to use climate warfare during Operation Popeye. I don't know if HAARP is currently doing such activities but it wouldn't suprise me. According to a source from a recent RT report, Russia is still modifying weather in our modern age.
gatesofhell1981 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The sun doesn't really warm the earth. The sun in conjuction with the greenhouse effect does. It's the end of January here in the midwest and for the first time in 57 years of my life it hasn't snowed but one tiny dusting.
ped200014 3 weeks ago
lol they must be pretty embarrased about this episode nowadays
ziqueez 3 weeks ago
Excited about a rock????????? Good Grief.
TPLR2 3 weeks ago
Hmm.. The sun warms the Earth.. maybe the sun and its varying activity has something to do with it? Oh wait.. that's EXACTLY how it works.. The Earth may be warming, but it's a load of arrogant bullshit to think that we're completely responsible for it.
abaddon1112 4 weeks ago 3
Comment removed
ped200014 3 weeks ago
I respected these assholes until now. They are igno-rants or paid hirelings or both.
azzy314159 1 month ago
Even if global warming is "bullshit" (which it fucking isn't) does that mean we should carry on nonchalantly until our water is undrinkable, our air is posionous, and our forests, grasslands, and oceans are rendered to nothing more than dumps? Penn and Teller are right about a lot of things but they are beyond wrong if their willing to say global warming is non-existant.
PeopleR2sensitive 1 month ago
when my dad was in school, what Penn quoted was considered the truth as current as 1982. when I was in 3rd grade the goverment said that there would be no oil left by 1999. Gas was $1/gal when i turned 16 in 1999.
Global warming is bullshit. the earth goes through climate changes all the time. the was a mini ice age that lasted until the 1800s. The current enviroment bs is nothing more then a scheme to make money.
CamaroAmx 1 month ago
@CamaroAmx "Because sensationalist environmentalists were wrong in the past, all climate scientists are wrong right now."
This logic is not flawed in any way.
F1NGER 1 month ago
The graph at 4:27 stops in 2000, just before solar activity dips down again and global temperatures continue shooting up (and the data showing this was easily available in 2008, when this episode aired.) So John Coleman is intentionally ignoring data that supports the climate change model. What the data shows is that while solar activity accounts for past climate change, it cannot account for the current warming trend.
F1NGER 1 month ago
@F1NGER - actually there was a cooling trend from 2000 - 2010.
maluorno 1 month ago
@maluorno Source?
F1NGER 1 month ago
@F1NGER - global climate data. Huffington post, associated press, reuters......
maluorno 1 month ago
@maluorno Protip. When you make scientific assertion and someone asks you for your source, they're usually looking for something a little more specific than "the news."
Find one study, preferably peer-reviewed, that shows the cooling trend you spoke of. A neat trick you can try is to go to one of those popular news articles you're talking about, then look at the name of the study they're citing and what journal it was published in. If they don't have the source, find one that does. Good luck.
F1NGER 1 month ago
@F1NGER - I didn't know you wanted me to do all your investigating for you. Maybe you could do a little digging for yourself and find out who started the whole 'carbon credit' scam and take a closer look at Al Gore's 600,000 - year graph outlining the earth's climate history based on ice core samples. It turns out that increases in carbon in the atmosphere FOLLOW increases in overall global temps by almost 1000 years.
maluorno 1 month ago
@maluorno You made a claim, so the burden of backing up that claim is on you. I don't care what Al Gore has to say. He's not a scientist. I care what scientists have to say.
Even Richard Muller, a global warming skeptic who spent the past two years gathering massive amounts of temperature data in an attempt to disprove global warming, was forced to agree with mainstream climate scientists that the Earth is warming.
So I ask again. Can you find one study showing a cooling trend?
F1NGER 1 month ago
@F1NGER I can find you some graphs...
ArsenicApplejuice 4 weeks ago
@ArsenicApplejuice Then please do.
F1NGER 3 weeks ago
The Time magazine article Penn is quoting was a sensationalist article about a hypothesis that never gained much support, let alone a scientific consensus as strong as the current climate change model has. To equate the two is to show their profound ignorance of the subject. If you want to know what's going on with the climate, talk to climatologists. Al Gore is not a climatologist. A TV watherman is not a climatologist. NOT ONE relevant scientist was interviewed in this episode.
F1NGER 1 month ago
Overall temparatures will fluctuate over time and there's no evidence that humans caused it and we shouldn't be paying taxes to use the very air it's just a cash grab.
MrROTD 1 month ago
Goddamn, the just give out Nobel Prizes like candy these days, don't they?
PappeH 1 month ago
@PappeH they give it to mass murderers so I wouldn't be proud to get one
MrROTD 1 month ago
It's a driveway rock, ya dumb bitch!
quidnick 1 month ago
all you have to do is go to The Skeptic website and read what they say about global warming. don't listen to the bullshit from this show.
newmind1 1 month ago
fealing really excited about this rock......fucking queer.
biggunsnstuff 1 month ago
@biggunsnstuff
To be honest, he looked like he was about to laugh so I don't think he was being serious. On a side note your homophobic and are probably secretly gay.
TheSorrow1O1 1 month ago
@TheSorrow1O1 haha i didnt mean he was gay queer means weird retard.
biggunsnstuff 1 month ago
@biggunsnstuff
Nice try. If you use 'queer' as a noun to describe someone, your calling them gay, plain and simple. If you had used it as an adjective then you might have an argument, but you didn't.
TheSorrow1O1 1 month ago
@TheSorrow1O1 ......fucking queer.........fucking weird.........wow they are interchangeable, crazy shit there!!
biggunsnstuff 1 month ago
@biggunsnstuff
You obviously don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.
TheSorrow1O1 1 month ago
@TheSorrow1O1 OMG ....dude go be a internet badass somewhere else.......
and btw now days english is so fucked up exspecially on the net and texting your lucky u can understand half the damn posts on this site.
biggunsnstuff 1 month ago
@TheSorrow1O1 Wrong, Queer can be a noun or an adjective. Queer usually means gay in America but Queer means wierd usually in England.
MrROTD 1 month ago
@MrROTD
Yes it can be a noun or adjective, I never said anything contrary to that. I was saying that when you call someone a queer your calling them gay, or at the very least that's what everyone is going to assume your saying. Also I'm from England and calling SOMEONE queer is exactly the same. It's different if you say, for instance, "that's queer" but that's not what he said.
TheSorrow1O1 1 month ago
Wow first bull shit episode I have found to be quite full of bullshit. Not one scientist. I guess it was showing the bullshit of the fear mongering. But the science of warming is sound, not world ending, just significant. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its pretty basic science, you can model it and demonstrate it easily. It is an interesting debate, though.
jeans1515 1 month ago
i don't know much about any of this stuff, but i do know those suffering from "eco anxiety" are wankers.
thexev 1 month ago
A weatherman from the 70's is not a scientist. Weather is not climate change. They could have interviewed at least one scientist.
bradjbourgeois73 1 month ago
@bradjbourgeois73 Yes he is actually
KnuckleTouchActivate 1 month ago
its not too late to change, simply time is running out to halt and REVERSE not simply just halt.
Jormungrandrserpent 1 month ago
time magazine is retarded is republician front.
there are actually very lucrative economic opportunities we can gain as a species by "going green".
because the manner in which green technology generates energy and/or saves it, it has greater longevity in terms of jobs than fossil fuel- based technology.
Jormungrandrserpent 1 month ago
I'm not sure if I agree with them here but they bring up nice facts. The earth IS coming out of and its getting hotter that's how we rolll. Global emissions probably aren't doing the earth any good but they are over hyped by a lot of politicians. Then there's the absolute alarmists who say things like "Global warming could kill us within one hundred years" < That's just absolute BULLSHIT. I think we need to cut down on our reliance on fossil fuels though, but mostly for economic reasons.
nousernamesleft14 1 month ago
I like Penn but he is dangerously WRONG
usintelreport 1 month ago
@usintelreport on what grounds??
ossified4reason 1 month ago
@usintelreport Yeah!! Who needs to rely on and believe in facts. Lets believe what "our" beloved government tells us. They would never lie to us.
nephilium67 1 month ago
I love this show lol
aba2185 1 month ago
Isn't the vast majority of the greenhouse effect naturally caused? Water vapor makes up 2/3 of the green house effect and it's almost entirely natural.
disneyking81 1 month ago
But... Global Warming IS caused by man.
1451tyler 1 month ago
@1451tyler No it isnt. Global warming has been happening for billions of years and is still happening. Climates always change, it has nothing to do with us.
luckyStrike89ru 1 month ago
@1451tyler right. similar to how god is caused by man.
toSTONEiGO 1 month ago
Well, whatever. Just as long as nobody really takes them seriously.
omnigaltite 1 month ago
It's great to be skpetical, but this show NEVER does a good job of backing up it's claims with true facts and sound logic. Even when I agree with their message, I can't help but to feel intellectually cheated by how nil-brained and poorly constructed this program is.
Ant1Live 1 month ago
How exactly does saying humanity only contributes about 3% of the carbon in the atmosphere discredit global warming? That 3%, or the growth of that 3%, could be what causes the glass to overflow. Even though the Sun burns at several thousands of degrees, a one degree increase would have a huge impact on the Earth.
Thinking of atmospheric carbons in big percentages versus little percentages is a fallacy.
belolacove 1 month ago
I haven't watched yet, but I already know the show itself is bullshit if the description box is accurate. You know why? Because there's no controversy in the scientific community.
Man creates Global Warming.
tiaxanderson 1 month ago
I usually like the show, but they've really blown this one!
NormacHC 1 month ago
@NormacHC how?
ossified4reason 1 month ago
So give rocks to people and talk a little bullshit and they give u money
jopi122 2 months ago
Did someone hijack "Cross-Eyed Mary" in the intro?
RedVynil 2 months ago
I have always enjoyed Penn and Teller but the fact is global warming is real and it is man caused. The science is real and it is verifired.
Twostones00 2 months ago
@leerman22 so with your flawless logic mercury should be boiling right now? It's so much closer than Venus. But sadly that's absolutely false. Mercury is the coldest inner planet, colder than mars, the farthest inner planet. Coincidentally mercury has one of the thinnest atmospheres in the solar system. And Venus has an extremely thick one. Is it starting to make sense?
twostepRMX 2 months ago
Comment removed
totoritko 2 months ago
You're giving them fucking gravel?!
poopy729 2 months ago 11
There are those liberals who are harmful, but mean well, like Hillary, Obama, and Hitler.
Then there are those liberals that are harmful and DON'T mean well; Gore, Edwards, and Stalin.
tnekkc 2 months ago
Normally I agree with penn and teller, but not here. I don't think that an old ass weatherman is much of an authority on climatology. The greenhouse affect is true, it's been proven and studied on other planets, Venus for example. The atmosphere is made almost entirely of CO2 and is almost 1,000 degrees, because greenhouse gases let infrared light in, but not letting any out. This shouldn't even be a debate.
twostepRMX 2 months ago
@twostepRMX But you'll believe an ex-politician who has zero expertise in climate studies?
Sage2Summit 2 months ago
@twostepRMX I also heard that Venus is significantly closer to the sun than Earth is.
leerman22 2 months ago
@twostepRMX the 'old weatherman' may not be an authority.......but he's a hell of a lot more of one than Al 'rich fucking hypocrite' Gore
funcpl2741054 2 months ago
@funcpl2741054 I agree, in fact I practically have no idea who Al Gore is. However, Global Warming is real.
I'm glad they got the figure of human emissions vs natural emissions right, but the biggest emissions of CO2 comes from the ocean with a whopping 43%. (just look up the human and natural emissions and do the maths).
So far P&T are a little less bullshittier in this ep than I thought, but they're still wrong.
tiaxanderson 1 month ago
al gore is a dumb ass
Rhino38sport 2 months ago
@Rhino38sport Without a doubt!
Sage2Summit 2 months ago
The skeptics among the scientific community have been silenced. Wait 10 years, then we'll see where this little hoax stands in the broad scope of history.
atrophyfilms2012 2 months ago
It isn't the scientists preaching this shit, it's the politicians and bimbo celebrities. Gore is a hypocrite who nearly became President. Ha ha American, he nearly became your President. Global Warming/Climate Change is a scam, a lie, a hoax; and the biggest one in the history of Mankind.
atrophyfilms2012 2 months ago
wow iam very disappointed from this episode. Finally Penn and Teller become anti-science
jomushin7 2 months ago
LOL! And liberals say WE'RE stupid?!
MrBolas33 2 months ago
lol
nice
SchafeyWafey 2 months ago
I also recemmend people look at the temperatures over a 20.000, 10.000, 2000, 1000, or even 500 year period and you'd realize there is absolutely nothing special about recent global warming.
Global warming needs to be put in contex.
DaveElectric 2 months ago 12
@DaveElectric I believe in climate change since... you know, we live on a planet and all...
HillChris1234 1 month ago
@HillChris1234 okay......
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric LIES! ManBearPig!!!!! RAAAAAAWR! :D
BigDirtyBasterd 1 month ago