The only real, effective way to "go green" is to do it through the markets without the government getting involved by creating red tape, subsidies, taxes, etc. There's so much bullshit in all these various "green" industries BESIDES carbon credits. For example, that whole biofuel thing actually turned out to be more harmful on the environment. Liberals and greentards will tell you no one can profit from helping the environment, so it's no surprise they don't know about algae fuel research.
I "believe" in climate change, if you want to put it that way.... but without a shadow of a doubt, carbon trading is indeed a massive load of grade-A bullshit that allows the world's biggest polluters to keep on polluting and to look like environmentalists while doing it
I am confused. I thought we all agreed that there were global warming." The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring." quote from wiki.
I am so very disappointed with Penn using the bullshit "It's climate change, it used to be global warming" argument. If you go with your brains and not your heart, you won't assume that there's a global scientific conspiracy either, and you will side with ~97% of climate scientists.
I just want to add that you might want to look up the difference between "there" and "their," as well as "its" and "it's" before you go around calling people 'fucking idiot' and 'fuck wit.' Start with basic literacy, then move on to the harder stuff, like name calling.
@willisonwx i apologize for not using correct grammer on a YOUTUBE comment you fucking moron, and taking a couple community college courses doesnt make you a scientist you fuck wit
You might enjoy a new book called "Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warning Scam" by Brian Sussman. Basically, Green is the new Red (as in communism).
"yeah, i don't understand any of the science with my high school education, but it 'smells' like bullshit." spoken like a true rational skeptic... wait....no. "think with your mind and not your heart" sir.
also, it got renamed 'climate change' because lay people kept getting confused during the winter time. it was not renamed 'in case it goes the other way.'
@willisonwx you are a fucking idiot ,they renamed it in case it goes down or up so they would not be wrong, they claim its about confusion but if your science says global warming then thats what the fuck its called, they changed in case they are wrong about there hypothesis. fuck wit
no, josh . . . I'm a climate scientist. It is global warming. It will never be global cooling. There is no fear of the hypothesis being wrong. It is called climate change now because, as I stated 5 months ago, PEOPLE GET CONFUSED BY LOCAL COOLING. Globally averaged temperature will continue to increase, but PARTS of the world can still get cold.
Climate change is the description created early on in the 1970's and mentioned in journals as far back as the 1950's in paper's and journals by scientists who were admittedly unsure about the course the climate was going to take. Global warming after the 1970's outpaced Global cooling by some 48 to 8 papers, by the 1980's the description used to describe climate change that was going to take place was global warming. People, proponents and skeptics have been confusing the two ever since.
Par usual people like Gorge Will and even Times magazine either purposely confuse the time line of their scientific usage with the popular presses usuage of them or vice versa confuse the categorical meaning of the two as a necessarily synonymous categorical grouping, they aren't at all. One is a subset of the other created later to describe the body of evidence which evaluates the long term human impact, while the other ...
climate change describes both including the very long term body of evidence including those systems effecting geological time scales that despite what we do, can only deviate from by a certain degree (unless we start purposely looking to geoengineer, though it might be significant change in deviation to local observers) an example of such an almost inevitable event that might simply still described as climate change is the next ice age due cycle due in 15,000-20,000 years.
Be bullshit or not, i dont think its moraly wrong to provoque global climate change, its completaly natural.. sins earth it self wont be destroyed. The planet has existed in so much worse situations then "plastic bags, or species driving cars".. The planet is self-corecting ; we gonna die and the planet will fix it self, so dont worry foks... global warming... is bullshit ^^..
Well, Penn and Teller are both research fellows at the Cato Institute, so I guess this kind of rhetoric is to be expected. But if you read between the lines in this video, Penn WANTS GW to be bullshit, but knows rationally that it is not.
It's unfortunate, too, because unlike second-hand smoke (which they later admitted really is somewhat dangerous), GW could be absolutely catastrophic if we do not have a global effort to stop and reverse it. And dragging our feet is getting us nowhere, here.
You can't just SAY global warming isn't happening when the scientific community is unanimous (the serious, legitimate scientific community for all of those of you who have been duped sadly),
when we are being told we need to do something or face changes in our lives that are permanent and potentially very dangerous, and irreversible.
Do you want your kids to be left on a planet where we didn't act, where they don't have any options?
@boxant government regulations are needed sometimes, dumbass. you clearly have never worked in any sort of scientific discipline, have you? because all of those solvents we fuck around with need to be disposed of properly. we can't just pour them down the sink, or dump them in a field. we have to dispose of them properly according to regulations, and with good reason.
@33LB Well someone is a bit pissy, ha! I dump a few gallons of shit that leaks into my neighbors yard, then I did damage. If a company dumps a 100 gallons of shit into my yard then they did damage and will be hearing from my lawyer. Now, the problem lies in "public" land. That's the land that anyone can dump their shit and no one is going to come after them, the 'problem of the commons' all over again, it's easy to understand. Want to save nature, make it a person's priority.
my comment was about how government regulations are needed to look after things, because people can't be trusted to do it themselves. no government regulations, and we would be dumping our shit in any old field.
@33LB Do you own property? Do you "dump shit" on it? Does your neighbor? Does anyone? Is it because of a federal regulation that says "no one can dump shit on 33LB's property?"
Or is it because it's your property and you have invested interests in seeing that it doesn't lose value from someone "dumping shit" on it?
Please educate yourself on the debate, it has been around for a while.
@boxant but even if i wanted to dump a whole load of toxic solvents in my own land, i wouldn't be allowed to do so because of government regulations. and rightfully so, because it could be harmful to myself or others.
people are stupid- trust me, i know. thus, regulations are needed to keep people in line because they cant be trusted to do the right thing themselves.
@33LB So we need government to protect ourselves from ourselves? If I dump something toxic that causes harm to another person, then I am liable for their harm, it's actually government "sanction" of such dumping that usually causes the most damage, because the companies involved are not held liable for their actions. Just look at the BP oil spill, BP can not be held liable for all the damages because of the agreement they had with the US government.
@boxant yes, we need to protect people from people. people are stupid. and i know this from working in a supermarket for 6 years- it's a real eye-opener to the everyday stupidity of common people.
government sanctions of dumping? well obviously that's going to be harmful to people. im pretty sure we were discussion the situations in which the government PREVENTS dumping.
Whether or not you think climate change is real or not, Penn is being dishonest by saying the point of the show is to go with your head not your gut, agree that "There is some information that it might be real", and then create an episode that did not convey that message in the slightest.
Aside from this small portion of the being green episode (the rest of it is great) and a few other portions of other episodes, Bullshit! is a great show.
Here is the thing when it comes to Global warming IE climate change. All you have to do is look at the history of the earth to see if its true and the fact is in a 1000 AD it was warmer than it is now. The vikings were living on Greenland tell the starting of the mini ice age and there is Archeological evidence that proves it.
Al Gore is a snake, he swans around the planet on jets and gets chauffered around in powerful engined cars, yet tells the common person he should not do this.
Not nearly as much as assholes like the Koch brothers profit from ignoring it. Al Gore can go fuck himself anyway. Gore and the Kochs are not climate scientists. Climate scientists do know that it's true.
Scary thing about the "green movement"? Some day you´ll find your own head spouting dumb things about environment "friendliness", vegetarianism and practices that aren´t useful for 5 seconds.. and after that, you turn into an enviro-nazi and then there´s no hope for you. :P
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
congratudulations penn and teller.. you admit its real.. there is nothing ok. about polluting the earth.. the plastic ocean is a disaster.. these things are common sense..
Plastic ocean (I assume your talking about plastic trash floating in the ocean)? That's pollution, not global warming! Global warming is the effect that CO2 gas has on global temperature, and the fact that there is more CO2 gas in the atmosphere. Some people say that we are contributing significantly to this effect, and may be able to reverse it.
Buying forgiveness via carbon credits. Just like buying your way into heaven by purchasing indulgences (the proceeds which the Church so wisely invested so that centuries later, they, in turn, could buy forgiveness, for being way too friendly with underage boys and girls).
So Gore Ahead, and purchase carbon forgiveness, so that centuries from now the Descendants of Gore can buy forgiveness for whatever future peccadilloes they'll have planned...
OMFG penn said exactly what i been saying at 33 secs in,, in the 80s and 90s they said 'global warming' now they start saying 'climate change' since we just entered the cooling cycle of the sun.
Its funny how every single change in temperature goes against what they were previously saying, but makes "perfect sense" with what they are currently saying.
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease."
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."
You know what, I've read a great many of them, it's all online.
Yes, we KNOW, read the NAS piece on what a theory is, it is so well-established no new evidence is likely to alter it.
Yes WE KNOW.
And even if the consensus wasn't so strong, we would still need to act in the case something might happen.
I also read the United States Defense Department report from last year (very easy to read and find) the Pentagon is preparing for the coming effects of climate change
Nightversionn - Alright. Tell me how the increased atmospheric CO2 will affect plant growth? Will the solar output of the sun be more or less in five years than it is today? Will global warming cause an overall increase or decrease in the albedo of the earth? A basic question. In five years will the average temperature of the earth be higher or lower?
Increase temp suggests more water vapor. More cloud cover. Presumably less ice cover (although there is no consensus on that either). Less ice, albedo down. More clouds albedo up. More CO2, plant biomass growth up. Less rain, plant biomass growth down.
ALL of which affect the level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
So now tell me again how you KNOW what is going to happen environmentally in the next decade.
And remind me what the solar output is going to be in 5-10 years.
ccr5cxcr4 - "Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena"
So predict. Will the solar output be higher or lower in 5 years? As solar output is the single greatest variable in earth temperature, the fact that you cannot predict solar output in 5 years means that you cannot predict with confidence terran temperatures in 5 years.
Now you can make predictions ASSUMING CONSTANT SOLAR OUTPUT.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease.
From the United States National Academy of Sciences:
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena
"climate change is happening" Duh. That is like saying "the earth is in motion." Well no shit sherlock.
HOW is it changing? What are the relevant factors? Do you take into account the ever-changing weather of the sun?
I am not denying that the earth is currently warming. I am saying that we should stick to what we can reasonably demonstrate, and admit the shortcomings of our science.
When we stretch the facts, we destroy credibility & open the door for the do-nothing crowd.
Again, don't listen to me, read what all the major scientific bodies are reporting with near unanimity (there is always debate around the margins, as well there should be)
Well, yess there the climate changing, but it always has been changing and always will be. All these so called "scientific" (more popularity) studies look at the past 100/200 years. Then it would be true that the global warming is caused by us. But if you look at less commerial and more objective studies who at 5 million years or so. There have been conclusions that most of it just A NATURAL PROCESS. The earth warms up and at a certain point in time a sudden drop in temperature is experienced...
"Dude" Yeah, the episode talking about climate change ended with the quote, "We just don't fuckin' know."
But that's flat wrong. We DO know. Read the latest reports from the IPCC and from the all the major scientific institutions worldwide which are in consensus that yes, we do know, climate change is happening.
Bro, do some research, as I wish Penn and Teller had done instead of rehash rw talking points to a T.
So disappointed in Penn, I had thought him smart and funny until I saw this
Ad hominem attacks show you have nothing valid to say. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore unless you think science is a political issue I have researched climate change for years including these organizations: The United States Defense Department The United States government The IPCC (representing scientists worldwide) The NOAA The NAS National Geographic The British Academy NASA and on and on and on....
This is YouTube, no one has anything valid to say. And yes, I think this IS a political issue. It doesn't matter how many organizations say it's true, it simply is NOT a proven fact. Ive done some research myself, though I imagine not as much as you, but Im still not convinced. However, this episode was not about whether or not its true, but about the new religion and all the hypocrisy that comes with it.
well...yes, there are some smart people who are here (wouldn't count myself as one but...), global warming is not a religion, it is just something that is happening
All I can say is it is never a bad idea to keep an open mind and be open for information and not come at things from a fixed point of view
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."
"climate change is happening" Duh. That is like saying "the earth is in motion." Well no shit sherlock.
HOW is it changing? What are the relevant factors? Do you take into account the ever-changing weather of the sun?
I am not denying that the earth is currently warming. I am saying that we should stick to what we can reasonably demonstrate, and admit the shortcomings of our science.
When we stretch the facts, we destroy credibility & open the door for the do-nothing crowd.
well...I can't take issue with your all of your post. I suggest you research the issue more and you can find the answers you are seeking
No on is stretching the facts. If anything science is too conservative in its predictions of what may be in store for us if we don't take urgent action
So what if people want to argue because they they believe the facts have been stretched. We will find out sooner or later what mother nature has in store for us
Nightversionn - You aren't going to change people who have made up their minds. You have the potential to convince the others.
But if you stretch the facts, then you destroy your credibility, and increase the probability that the "undecided" will either side against you, or decide you are dishonest and refuse to support policies & science that may help.
"know, climate change is happening" Well no shit sherlock. When has it not been happening?
"global warming is not a religion" No it is a theory.
We have good evidence. But we do not "know" and you are not convincing anyone by stretching the facts. In fact you are damaging the cause you claim to support.
Nightversionn - "read all the reports from all those institutions?" Nope. And neither have you.
"We DO know" Really? What scientist is going to claim he or she KNOWS what will happen? Particularly an environmental projection.
We CAN say that we have good data. And our best estimation is that the Earth is warming.
Claiming you "KNOW" is just not true & damages your credibility because it is all too easy to demonstrate factors you do not know, which are relevant.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Boom. This video summed up their their show refuting climate change.
So many scientists would disagree with these dummies that it is almost laughable. Don't get me wrong... I like these guys... they are extremely entertaining but one has to question their motives.
They said that they don't have enough evidence to refute climate change... in THIS video.
And then they go and create a show refuting climate change.
These guys... are on the ROFLcopter! Flying around looking for bullshit news...
I mean who in the right mind wants to use an energy source that's bound to deplete! So what im worried about is that this whole debate about man made global warming could actually hurt moving towards better forms efficient energy(which sadly is also attacked (not by P&T)but by other nuts who argue against the retarded nature hippies).It is very important that we make this distinction when pointing out what the real bullshit is!
I hold the same notion as Penn & Teller do; that there is no real information to be sure about anthropocentric global warming but im sure all those environmental hippies are screwed up,but You know what? It doesn't matter if global warming is bullshit,using oil is stupid,its not renewable,it causes other forms of environmental and health issues,so global warming or not we should move away from stupid forms of energy.
Go on and say it PENN .... Global warming I mean Global Climate change is BULLSHIT at least the fact that humans are the cause.
Come on you know in your mind and heart that these enviro nuts are full of rich white guilt and need something to hate themselves for. Just like any other religion.
Anybody that finds Gore credible in the least obviously hasn't looked at the fine print on certain environmental surveys. Even those done by our scientific community. The problem with our field is merely a question of prestige. Who will get praise for a finding? On the hint of any little possibility they announce something. Right now the evidence is pointing to hoax. It's amazing the lengths people exaggerate such ordeals. I tell you we are a marvel and my memories leave no doubt of this.
i dont get why the yanks treat Gore as the end all environmental argument. he won awards for raising awareness of global warming, not for researching it. he isn't a scientist just a public speaker. just because he was wrong doesn't mean all scientists are debunked
I find Al Gore to be credible. He basically summarizes the information coming out of the scientific community. If you think global warming is a hoax then maybe you lack fundamental understanding of science. I don't know.
Al Gore really has nothing to do with any of this. He is a terrific spokesperson and has done a great deal on getting this issue out there, but he has nothing to do with the climate crisis itself
- I get local jobs (bike/walk) or I work from home.
- I compost everything that can be (which of course generates CO2! OH SHIT)
- I buy organic when given the choice, but mostly I grow my own food organically.
- Everything I grow is either a fruit or a vegetable.
By all standards, I'm greener than these so-called "green advocates." The green movement is a money making plot, a marketing scheme. It is obnoxious to encounter it on an almost daily basis.
By what logic is it a pretty good chance? By amount of people who believe it? Like there's a pretty good chance God is real? I wonder why Bill Gates spends his guilt money on starving children and AIDS and MALARIA instead of helping the "World". Lack of evidence isn't proof of evidence.
Should prolly give up on the whole Global Warming until the scientists can agree on whats going on.
'The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is unequivocal. '- Al Gore op ed
Actually, that's not true Night. The IPCC used the term "unequivocal" in their 2001 report. However, for their 2007 report they used "95% positive". Still shows their position but not the same meaning as "unequivocal".
Well, I have to agree on that. I cannot take anyone's word for it. Some people are credible. I find Al Gore credible, and I don't have a problem quoting him
OK then, 95% positive. I will try to make time to go back and look through it, but that's a pretty strong consensus, especially when talking about scientists agreeing on anything
hey, yeah, well I agree, the IPCC is very conservative in what they report, as science has to be. I think it is much worse and it could very well be that we've crossed a tipping point in which case nothing much can be done to stop us from destroying the world
yeah, as a yank I can only say most people in this country are uneducated. yep, it's not about Al Gore at all is it? I'm not sure what you say he was wrong about, but yeah, I agree with both your posts, good to hear some rationality
oh he wasn't overly wrong on any major points, but there was the odd point that was incorrect or dubious in An Inconvenient Truth and people grabbed it and started hooting about how flawed ALL of his arguments were, even though it was only a few minor points.
Yeah, I heard about that. They focused on some minor detail and totally avoided the big picture
Well, in our lifetime I think we'll be OK, let's hope the people and animals of the future are looked after as well. I really think mankind is capable of figuring out what to do. Well, let's hope so.
A few minor points!? Well first off, he used the word "if" as much as as breathing air, even though his "if this happens" scenarios had no credible proof. As to "a few minor points" as the basis for most of his arguments he used the Michael Mann "hockey stick" graph even though this has totally been debunked, and even Mann himself admitted to using faulty math AND the IPCC did not use it in their 2007 report. His estimations for sea level rise (20 ft) were 6 times what the IPCC had prdicted....
...and his prediction for a declining polar bear population flys in the face of all data showing that 14 of the 15 auroras of polars bears have increased in the last 40 years. These are not minor points; these are the crux of his argument to get everyone to buy his carbon credits.
Polar bears were a bad example as they are hunted and reliable data is hard to come by; there are however many documented cases of creatures dyeing out from global warming such as Tuataras, many of the world frogs due to less mist in areas and spread of a fungus,etc. So he chose a cuddly creature instead of an ugly one that is at significant risk, the point is still the same that biodiversity is at risk. So again his major point stands even if the data has errors
And there have been thousands of species that have died because of temperature cooling. Species die out all the time; most of them having nothing to do with the actions of man. But the point, again, is that Gore pulled a lot of things out of his ass to fuel the fear around this topic.
that fact that there is natural background extinction is not an excuse for allowing preventable extinctions.
he didn't pull things out of his arse he just included some common misconceptions. something that would be expected from a politician with no science training.
Why? Sticking with the extinctions argument, why should we interfere with our lives to prevent the extiction of a species? It's nice to have this argument when we are sitting in our warm homes typing away on a laptop, but if you are poor person in South America trying to eke out a living for you and your family, and it takes cutting down the natural habitat of a species on the brink of extinction, what would you do? Would you save that species or let your family starve to death?
And hold on a second. Al Gore didn't jump out of the audience and give that presentation. He has been giving and working on that presentation for years. He knew every comment and every "fact" he gave and the effect it would have on people.
i would teach the south Americans about agroforstry and how they can improve there farm productivity 4 fold with out the need to clear more land.
extinctions of one species often results in a boom of another. the loss of an insectivore can result in insect swarms that can wipe out crops resulting in starvations of people see the sparrow culling under mao.
Again, Hypo, a good discussion for the classroom, but I can't find any references where this form of farming is being utilized. Look, if this is possible and it can be used to save trees, and thus habitatas, I' ok for that. I'm endorsing wiping out species for fun. But I think we can get too comfortable in North America and implement poilicies for other people who don't enjoy the riches that we do.
And as you're pointed out, species go extinct all the naturally, so eliminating one doesn't necessarily mean there will be a chain reaction resulting in the destruction of other habitats.
the current clearing of vegetation in south America is cause by poverty, and yes, we cant be critical of farmers below the poverty line. however the reason that they are below the poverty line is because of government corruption and no investment in agricultural extension.
yes it shits me as well when greenies start bitching about how farmers are clearing land when its not their fault.
as they say its hard to be green when your in the red.
Michael Mann "hockey stick" graph WAS debunked yes, however since that report there have been at least 10 further studies that all show similar results, each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
The IPCCs predictions are conservative so of course they will be less than al gores worst case scenario. The figure is probably wrong but sea level rise IS occurring, so yeah minor error.
Wait, the IPCC has conservative predictions? And that makes it ok for Gore to increase his doomsday predictions for shock value? And please provide me with one of the 10 studies that have similiar results to the "hockey stick" graph because I have never heard of one other than the Mann graph. Because anything resembling a hockey stick on a temperature graph would mean that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age never happened.
i would favorite this for the comments alone. They are a healthy discussion from opposing views that the readers will learn more from than any television show. penn and teller are still my heroes, though.
....you would quickly dismiss the notion that the community enjoys this "concensus" that you like to harbor. And I would argue that these "fringe denialists" would offer a more unbiased opinion than those that are members of, and subjected to, the political motivations of these organizations.
Thank you Kalli. It's ok for people not to agree. I wouldn't say I have all the answers but I have done enough research to have doubts. As I have expressed.
The consensus of the scientific community that global warming is happening is strong, and that human intervention is accelerating it. The major scientific groups are in agreement on this,
IPCC
NOAA
National Academy of Sciences (American)
British Royal Society
British Meteorological Office
And many many many more
Fringe denialist's claim they know more than these historical and professional organizations is only part of their ideological belief system, not science
What you fail to realize is that the people who question the findings of the IPCC et al. have the same credentials, qualifications and standings that members of these organizations do. They are respected members of the scientific community who differ in their interpretation of the data. These scientists, and I have provided you with the names of many but I doubt you took the time to investigate them, are not "fringe denialist's" as you would label them. All you have to do is look...
I challenge you to look into the scientists who dont believe in climate change. Try to find who funds their experiments and laboratories. What you will most likely find is that they are funded by oil companies or other energy producers.
Consultant of "Friends of Science" (FOS). 1/3 of funds for this organization come from oil industry.
Robert M. Carter
Founding member of Australian Environment Foundation which according to an Inter Press Service report, is funded by "mostly mining, oil, tobacco and energy companies.
Vincent R. Gray
An executive of National Resources Stewardship Project NRSP - controlled by energy industry lobbyists.
....And is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award
And has won:MSFC Center Directors Commendation ; NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal ;AMS Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate. But let's not get off topic; you were presenting no argument for GW.
What I'd like to know is why the lying global deniaist industry is still at work, don't you know president Bush finally acknowledged global warming this year at Kyoto?
Who are you trying to convince at this point, lol
P&T offer a fact based, thoroughly researched, and emotion free debate to all of the stories they put on the air. You can disagree with them, but then you need to present evidence to dispute their claims. Believing that global warming is due entirely to man-made CO2 emissions because everyone else believes it is not having an opinion; it is following like a sheep. While man has had a minor effect the earth's climate, we are not the driving factor and no evidence suggests it will be catastrophic.
And yet I have heard nothing from you to dispute their claims. I understand that you are basing your opinion on consensus but consensus is not fact. The science behind the claims you support is sorrily lacking and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
You need to reverse your paragraph. YOU have not provided any evidence except for the spinning denialism of the global warming denialist industry. "I" have cited the IPCC and could also include the NOAA, The National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and the list of credible insitutions goes on and on
How about this: P. Chylek, et al. 2004"Global warming and the Greenland ice sheet," Climate Change 63, 201-21. "Since 1940... data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend.... The Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend. Or this: Comiso, J. C., 2000, "Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ,"Journal of Climate 13: 1674-96.
Both satellite data and ground stations show slight cooling over the last 20 years
Or this:Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, p. 330. "Natural climate variability on long time-scales will continue to be problematic for CO2 climate change analysis and detection." Lat one: Paul Reiter, et al, "Global warming and malaria: a call for accuracy," Lancet, 4, no. 1 (June 2004)."Many of these much-publicized predictions are ill informed and misleading
Now, I have provided peer reviewed evidence supporting my position. Where's yours?
I don't need to "prove" anything, that's what we have the scientific community for
When I get on a plane or go to the hospital, do I have to debate current relevant research to get help? NO, that's what we have PROFESSIONALS for
Your game as juvenile
I refer to you read literature from all the major historic scientific institutions, the NOAA, NASA, IPCC, NAS and the list goes on and on and on. But of course I have to debate a bunch of nonsense with you
Yes,but it is still your RESPONSIBILITY to ask questions,even from medical doctors,and research things so you know you are getting the correct information.I know the official line of these political organizations; I also have done RESEARCH and have found individuals who question the postions of these groups. (see Roy Spencer: senior scientist for climate studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama).I would recommend you read other opinions so can make informed judgments
That is actually, once again, inaccurate. He believes in evolution but is open to the idea of creationism. They are not mutually exclusive. However, I only got that from Wikipedia, as I am sure you did. I have not spoken with him and I do not know his views on this subject.
You know, not only do you disparage a man's work without researching it, but now you attack his faith. And out of the hundreds of scientists I have listed for you this is the only one you have commented on. I think your indignation is disingenuous. But, for the record:
Roy Spencer was smart enought to be named U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASAs Aqua satellite...
You can be stupid, duped, misinformed, but to be so lazy as to take all the right-wing global warming denialist fringe talking points as your script is beyond anything comprehensible.
I heard you do a piece on NPR once. I'm no huge fan of NPR but at lease I thought you had a brain!!!
the whole point of the show is to think with your mind???? WTF
You clearly have none.
I watched the show, it was written by the right-wing. I know this because I come into contact with the propaganda regularly and you listed all the denialist right-wing talking points to a T right down the line, as if they wrote the whole show.
and now with this postscript, they admit climate change is not all bullshit. this is like posting on page 8 the correction of an error made on the front page.
Actually sweetie they said more or less this at the end of the green episode. He got into a confessional box, and basically said: I have a confession to make: Global Warming...we don't know definitivly, so we can't really say it's bullshit, for it. -.- Please pay attention, Ok? ^_^
ok - good point. why did they feel they needed to produce this trailer/leader piece though. they say clearly that "there not enough evidence to refute it and there's some evidence that it's real" - don't you think that quite abit stronger than just saying "i don't know"?
Basically because the burden of proving something is ALWAYS on the accusor. I believe X. Ok, so prove X to be real, and/or I can prove that X is false.
P&T have one of the best shows on TV (no bullshit) and the people they spotlite in this "green" episode deserve the bullshit moniker - but there were NO climatologist brought on (politicians and TV weathermen are NOT climtologists) to present the current scientific concensus opinion. this is the first time i'm calling this bullshit show bullshit.
A climatologist is a "meteorologist" (or weatherman) who studies the effects of weather over time. This guy (the "weatherman") has been watching the weather for 4 decades. He has the same skill set as a climatologist. So your point is bullshit.
I never "think with my heart". I do however use it to pump blood around my body, and it seems to work OK.
lewisner 4 months ago
The only real, effective way to "go green" is to do it through the markets without the government getting involved by creating red tape, subsidies, taxes, etc. There's so much bullshit in all these various "green" industries BESIDES carbon credits. For example, that whole biofuel thing actually turned out to be more harmful on the environment. Liberals and greentards will tell you no one can profit from helping the environment, so it's no surprise they don't know about algae fuel research.
kommisar 7 months ago
I "believe" in climate change, if you want to put it that way.... but without a shadow of a doubt, carbon trading is indeed a massive load of grade-A bullshit that allows the world's biggest polluters to keep on polluting and to look like environmentalists while doing it
BEANPOLE111 11 months ago
I am confused. I thought we all agreed that there were global warming." The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring." quote from wiki.
eplete 1 year ago
buy your forgiveness? where did we see that before
KoopasRevengeHome 1 year ago
I am so very disappointed with Penn using the bullshit "It's climate change, it used to be global warming" argument. If you go with your brains and not your heart, you won't assume that there's a global scientific conspiracy either, and you will side with ~97% of climate scientists.
MentalSentinel 1 year ago
@MentalSentinel you mean the 75 out 77 that were hand picked out of the 3,000 and something scientists they actually surveyed
Celebrian666 1 year ago
@kingjosh87
I just want to add that you might want to look up the difference between "there" and "their," as well as "its" and "it's" before you go around calling people 'fucking idiot' and 'fuck wit.' Start with basic literacy, then move on to the harder stuff, like name calling.
willisonwx 1 year ago
@willisonwx i apologize for not using correct grammer on a YOUTUBE comment you fucking moron, and taking a couple community college courses doesnt make you a scientist you fuck wit
kingjosh87 1 year ago
Comment removed
willisonwx 1 year ago
Quite a one-sided discussion, don't you think? And i don't mean the topic.
tuschman168 1 year ago
You might enjoy a new book called "Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warning Scam" by Brian Sussman. Basically, Green is the new Red (as in communism).
major600 1 year ago
"yeah, i don't understand any of the science with my high school education, but it 'smells' like bullshit." spoken like a true rational skeptic... wait....no. "think with your mind and not your heart" sir.
also, it got renamed 'climate change' because lay people kept getting confused during the winter time. it was not renamed 'in case it goes the other way.'
carbon credits are bullshit though.
willisonwx 1 year ago
@willisonwx you are a fucking idiot ,they renamed it in case it goes down or up so they would not be wrong, they claim its about confusion but if your science says global warming then thats what the fuck its called, they changed in case they are wrong about there hypothesis. fuck wit
kingjosh87 1 year ago
@kingjosh87
no, josh . . . I'm a climate scientist. It is global warming. It will never be global cooling. There is no fear of the hypothesis being wrong. It is called climate change now because, as I stated 5 months ago, PEOPLE GET CONFUSED BY LOCAL COOLING. Globally averaged temperature will continue to increase, but PARTS of the world can still get cold.
willisonwx 1 year ago
deadleader555
did u get that from george carlin?
productofthestreets 2 years ago
Climate change is the description created early on in the 1970's and mentioned in journals as far back as the 1950's in paper's and journals by scientists who were admittedly unsure about the course the climate was going to take. Global warming after the 1970's outpaced Global cooling by some 48 to 8 papers, by the 1980's the description used to describe climate change that was going to take place was global warming. People, proponents and skeptics have been confusing the two ever since.
Slip819 2 years ago
Par usual people like Gorge Will and even Times magazine either purposely confuse the time line of their scientific usage with the popular presses usuage of them or vice versa confuse the categorical meaning of the two as a necessarily synonymous categorical grouping, they aren't at all. One is a subset of the other created later to describe the body of evidence which evaluates the long term human impact, while the other ...
Slip819 2 years ago
climate change describes both including the very long term body of evidence including those systems effecting geological time scales that despite what we do, can only deviate from by a certain degree (unless we start purposely looking to geoengineer, though it might be significant change in deviation to local observers) an example of such an almost inevitable event that might simply still described as climate change is the next ice age due cycle due in 15,000-20,000 years.
Slip819 2 years ago
Be bullshit or not, i dont think its moraly wrong to provoque global climate change, its completaly natural.. sins earth it self wont be destroyed. The planet has existed in so much worse situations then "plastic bags, or species driving cars".. The planet is self-corecting ; we gonna die and the planet will fix it self, so dont worry foks... global warming... is bullshit ^^..
Deadleader555 2 years ago 2
Well, Penn and Teller are both research fellows at the Cato Institute, so I guess this kind of rhetoric is to be expected. But if you read between the lines in this video, Penn WANTS GW to be bullshit, but knows rationally that it is not.
It's unfortunate, too, because unlike second-hand smoke (which they later admitted really is somewhat dangerous), GW could be absolutely catastrophic if we do not have a global effort to stop and reverse it. And dragging our feet is getting us nowhere, here.
EebstertheGreat 2 years ago
You can't just SAY global warming isn't happening when the scientific community is unanimous (the serious, legitimate scientific community for all of those of you who have been duped sadly),
when we are being told we need to do something or face changes in our lives that are permanent and potentially very dangerous, and irreversible.
Do you want your kids to be left on a planet where we didn't act, where they don't have any options?
I think we need to be prudent here.
Nightversionn 2 years ago
I don't care if people want to "go green" and buy/use more "earth friendly" products.
I do care (and strongly appose) *governmental* regulations, mandates, ect that force people to "go green".
boxant 2 years ago 20
@boxant government regulations are needed sometimes, dumbass. you clearly have never worked in any sort of scientific discipline, have you? because all of those solvents we fuck around with need to be disposed of properly. we can't just pour them down the sink, or dump them in a field. we have to dispose of them properly according to regulations, and with good reason.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB Well someone is a bit pissy, ha! I dump a few gallons of shit that leaks into my neighbors yard, then I did damage. If a company dumps a 100 gallons of shit into my yard then they did damage and will be hearing from my lawyer. Now, the problem lies in "public" land. That's the land that anyone can dump their shit and no one is going to come after them, the 'problem of the commons' all over again, it's easy to understand. Want to save nature, make it a person's priority.
boxant 7 months ago
@boxant what on earth are you talking about?
my comment was about how government regulations are needed to look after things, because people can't be trusted to do it themselves. no government regulations, and we would be dumping our shit in any old field.
33LB 7 months ago
@33LB Do you own property? Do you "dump shit" on it? Does your neighbor? Does anyone? Is it because of a federal regulation that says "no one can dump shit on 33LB's property?"
Or is it because it's your property and you have invested interests in seeing that it doesn't lose value from someone "dumping shit" on it?
Please educate yourself on the debate, it has been around for a while.
boxant 6 months ago
@boxant but even if i wanted to dump a whole load of toxic solvents in my own land, i wouldn't be allowed to do so because of government regulations. and rightfully so, because it could be harmful to myself or others.
people are stupid- trust me, i know. thus, regulations are needed to keep people in line because they cant be trusted to do the right thing themselves.
33LB 6 months ago
@33LB So we need government to protect ourselves from ourselves? If I dump something toxic that causes harm to another person, then I am liable for their harm, it's actually government "sanction" of such dumping that usually causes the most damage, because the companies involved are not held liable for their actions. Just look at the BP oil spill, BP can not be held liable for all the damages because of the agreement they had with the US government.
boxant 6 months ago
@boxant yes, we need to protect people from people. people are stupid. and i know this from working in a supermarket for 6 years- it's a real eye-opener to the everyday stupidity of common people.
government sanctions of dumping? well obviously that's going to be harmful to people. im pretty sure we were discussion the situations in which the government PREVENTS dumping.
33LB 6 months ago
@boxant
That is funny, this is exactly what I am supporting, because of people like you.
ekszentrik 3 months ago
This is such bullshit. We need to be doing something about global warming.
Please get informed people.
Nightversionn 2 years ago
Do some yourself first and realize the Earth isn't in as bad a state as we think it is, and even if it is, we aren't causing it.
decemius 2 years ago
" in case they want to go the other way and say it's colder" rofl!!!
ronnoceel 2 years ago
"There is some information that it might be real"
Whether or not you think climate change is real or not, Penn is being dishonest by saying the point of the show is to go with your head not your gut, agree that "There is some information that it might be real", and then create an episode that did not convey that message in the slightest.
Aside from this small portion of the being green episode (the rest of it is great) and a few other portions of other episodes, Bullshit! is a great show.
TruthJunior 2 years ago
They pointed it that it was happening at the end of the show. The main point of the being green episode was to say carbon credits are bullshit.
TrueMetis 2 years ago
Green is the new religion
PsykodelikCyoldier 2 years ago
Here is the thing when it comes to Global warming IE climate change. All you have to do is look at the history of the earth to see if its true and the fact is in a 1000 AD it was warmer than it is now. The vikings were living on Greenland tell the starting of the mini ice age and there is Archeological evidence that proves it.
JimmyDag81 2 years ago
We don't know if its true, but what we do know, is that assholes like Al Gore, are proffiting from it.
Yuber779 2 years ago 18
You couldn't have put it more politically incorrectly, yet correctly
Suses 2 years ago
@Yuber779
Al Gore is a snake, he swans around the planet on jets and gets chauffered around in powerful engined cars, yet tells the common person he should not do this.
1ngjoxsh 1 year ago
@Yuber779
Not nearly as much as assholes like the Koch brothers profit from ignoring it. Al Gore can go fuck himself anyway. Gore and the Kochs are not climate scientists. Climate scientists do know that it's true.
RichardMNixon 10 months ago
Scary thing about the "green movement"? Some day you´ll find your own head spouting dumb things about environment "friendliness", vegetarianism and practices that aren´t useful for 5 seconds.. and after that, you turn into an enviro-nazi and then there´s no hope for you. :P
Jentzi1 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
congratudulations penn and teller.. you admit its real.. there is nothing ok. about polluting the earth.. the plastic ocean is a disaster.. these things are common sense..
rock3125 2 years ago
retard
sugarydonkey 2 years ago
Plastic ocean (I assume your talking about plastic trash floating in the ocean)? That's pollution, not global warming! Global warming is the effect that CO2 gas has on global temperature, and the fact that there is more CO2 gas in the atmosphere. Some people say that we are contributing significantly to this effect, and may be able to reverse it.
dowekeller 2 years ago
Buying forgiveness via carbon credits. Just like buying your way into heaven by purchasing indulgences (the proceeds which the Church so wisely invested so that centuries later, they, in turn, could buy forgiveness, for being way too friendly with underage boys and girls).
So Gore Ahead, and purchase carbon forgiveness, so that centuries from now the Descendants of Gore can buy forgiveness for whatever future peccadilloes they'll have planned...
rtydhg9q 2 years ago 5
EXACTLY. I've always described it as my "bullshit detectors going off". Everything about the "green" movement scares the shit out of me.
Dronetek1 2 years ago
OMFG penn said exactly what i been saying at 33 secs in,, in the 80s and 90s they said 'global warming' now they start saying 'climate change' since we just entered the cooling cycle of the sun.
jwka2001 3 years ago
Its funny how every single change in temperature goes against what they were previously saying, but makes "perfect sense" with what they are currently saying.
Suses 2 years ago
asdf
Nightversionn 3 years ago
I love the faces Teller makes haha
lenaisapunkrocker 3 years ago
THAT is the definition of theory.
Read and reflect.
Nightversionn 3 years ago
"...Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted FACT."
Nightversionn 3 years ago 3
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease."
Nightversionn 3 years ago 5
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."
Nightversionn 3 years ago 2
Again, from the United States National Academy of Sciences:
Nightversionn 3 years ago
the scientific community has never been this unified, and yet you try to create the impression it is not
the world has moved on to solutions already anyway
your little fantasy world will come crashing down one day, sadly, well it has, you have just missed the boat apparently
as I said, you have been duped, or are lying, that is the only explanation I can see
Nightversionn 3 years ago
Yes I DO KNOW
evolution is a theory and I know with a very high degree of probability, it will keep happening
you say these are mere theories, but that is how the scientific process works
the problem is you lack a basic understanding of science, like so many people
Nightversionn 3 years ago
I will take what the United States government is advising over what you are saying
I will take what the Pentagon is reporting over what you are saying
I will take my direct observation over what you are saying
Why would any rational person believe you over that??
Well, he wouldn't
Nightversionn 3 years ago
I will take what the scientific community is reporting on over what you are saying
and so would any rational person
Nightversionn 3 years ago
You know what, I've read a great many of them, it's all online.
Yes, we KNOW, read the NAS piece on what a theory is, it is so well-established no new evidence is likely to alter it.
Yes WE KNOW.
And even if the consensus wasn't so strong, we would still need to act in the case something might happen.
I also read the United States Defense Department report from last year (very easy to read and find) the Pentagon is preparing for the coming effects of climate change
READ THE REPORTS
Nightversionn 3 years ago
not stretching the facts, it is sound science
you are the one stretching things ccr5cxcr4, spreading misinformation, creating the impression there is doubt where there is not,
Nightversionn 3 years ago
Nightversionn - Alright. Tell me how the increased atmospheric CO2 will affect plant growth? Will the solar output of the sun be more or less in five years than it is today? Will global warming cause an overall increase or decrease in the albedo of the earth? A basic question. In five years will the average temperature of the earth be higher or lower?
ccr5cxcr4 3 years ago
Increase temp suggests more water vapor. More cloud cover. Presumably less ice cover (although there is no consensus on that either). Less ice, albedo down. More clouds albedo up. More CO2, plant biomass growth up. Less rain, plant biomass growth down.
ALL of which affect the level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
So now tell me again how you KNOW what is going to happen environmentally in the next decade.
And remind me what the solar output is going to be in 5-10 years.
ccr5cxcr4 3 years ago
ccr5cxcr4 - "Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena"
So predict. Will the solar output be higher or lower in 5 years? As solar output is the single greatest variable in earth temperature, the fact that you cannot predict solar output in 5 years means that you cannot predict with confidence terran temperatures in 5 years.
Now you can make predictions ASSUMING CONSTANT SOLAR OUTPUT.
Heck of an assumption.
ccr5cxcr4 3 years ago
(USNAS continued)
Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
Nightversionn 3 years ago
Therefore, you say, global warming is a theory. So it is. And this is how the scientific views theories they have reached consensus on.
There you go
Nightversionn 3 years ago
USNAS continued:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease.
Nightversionn 3 years ago
From the United States National Academy of Sciences:
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena
Nightversionn 3 years ago
"climate change is happening" Duh. That is like saying "the earth is in motion." Well no shit sherlock.
HOW is it changing? What are the relevant factors? Do you take into account the ever-changing weather of the sun?
I am not denying that the earth is currently warming. I am saying that we should stick to what we can reasonably demonstrate, and admit the shortcomings of our science.
When we stretch the facts, we destroy credibility & open the door for the do-nothing crowd.
ccr5cxcr4 3 years ago
Again, don't listen to me, read what all the major scientific bodies are reporting with near unanimity (there is always debate around the margins, as well there should be)
The United States Defense Department
The United States government
The IPCC (representing scientists worldwide)
The NOAA
The NAS
National Geographic
The British Academy
NASA...
Read for yourself. Beyond that I cannot help you
Nightversionn 3 years ago
... we only contribute for a small percentage to this whole thing. Even if we are a cause of it, we cant simply stop breathing.
erwindso 3 years ago
Well, yess there the climate changing, but it always has been changing and always will be. All these so called "scientific" (more popularity) studies look at the past 100/200 years. Then it would be true that the global warming is caused by us. But if you look at less commerial and more objective studies who at 5 million years or so. There have been conclusions that most of it just A NATURAL PROCESS. The earth warms up and at a certain point in time a sudden drop in temperature is experienced...
erwindso 3 years ago
"Dude" Yeah, the episode talking about climate change ended with the quote, "We just don't fuckin' know."
But that's flat wrong. We DO know. Read the latest reports from the IPCC and from the all the major scientific institutions worldwide which are in consensus that yes, we do know, climate change is happening.
Bro, do some research, as I wish Penn and Teller had done instead of rehash rw talking points to a T.
So disappointed in Penn, I had thought him smart and funny until I saw this
Nightversionn 3 years ago 3
How about you do some research instead of shoving your head up Al Gore's ass.
AJHavard 3 years ago
Nightversionn 3 years ago 2
This is YouTube, no one has anything valid to say. And yes, I think this IS a political issue. It doesn't matter how many organizations say it's true, it simply is NOT a proven fact. Ive done some research myself, though I imagine not as much as you, but Im still not convinced. However, this episode was not about whether or not its true, but about the new religion and all the hypocrisy that comes with it.
AJHavard 3 years ago
well...yes, there are some smart people who are here (wouldn't count myself as one but...), global warming is not a religion, it is just something that is happening
All I can say is it is never a bad idea to keep an open mind and be open for information and not come at things from a fixed point of view
Nightversionn 3 years ago 2
And from the United States National Academy of Sciences, created I believe by Abraham Lincoln:
Nightversionn 3 years ago
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."
Nightversionn 3 years ago
Fight the good fight, Nightversionn. There' s a lot of ignorant libertarians on youtube who will lie to avoid regulation.
directedchaos 3 years ago
"climate change is happening" Duh. That is like saying "the earth is in motion." Well no shit sherlock.
HOW is it changing? What are the relevant factors? Do you take into account the ever-changing weather of the sun?
I am not denying that the earth is currently warming. I am saying that we should stick to what we can reasonably demonstrate, and admit the shortcomings of our science.
When we stretch the facts, we destroy credibility & open the door for the do-nothing crowd.
ccr5cxcr4 3 years ago
well...I can't take issue with your all of your post. I suggest you research the issue more and you can find the answers you are seeking
No on is stretching the facts. If anything science is too conservative in its predictions of what may be in store for us if we don't take urgent action
So what if people want to argue because they they believe the facts have been stretched. We will find out sooner or later what mother nature has in store for us
Fine, the do nothing crowd can kill us all
Nightversionn 3 years ago
Nightversionn - You aren't going to change people who have made up their minds. You have the potential to convince the others.
But if you stretch the facts, then you destroy your credibility, and increase the probability that the "undecided" will either side against you, or decide you are dishonest and refuse to support policies & science that may help.
ccr5cxcr4 3 years ago
I am not stretching the facts.
I don't care who believes it or not, who chooses to remain ignorant, who chooses to be duped.
What I don't like are the blatant lies being told constantly by the right-wing spin machine spreading their falsehoods everywhere it can.
READ the reports coming out fro the scientific community, and if you choose to believe nonsense, so be it
Nightversionn 3 years ago
Nightversionn -
"don't listen to me" Don't worry.
"Read for yourself." Did it.
"I am not stretching the facts." Yes you are.
"We DO know" Know what?
"know, climate change is happening" Well no shit sherlock. When has it not been happening?
"global warming is not a religion" No it is a theory.
We have good evidence. But we do not "know" and you are not convincing anyone by stretching the facts. In fact you are damaging the cause you claim to support.
ccr5cxcr4 3 years ago
Oh, you read all the reports from all those institutions?
Nightversionn 3 years ago
Nightversionn - "read all the reports from all those institutions?" Nope. And neither have you.
"We DO know" Really? What scientist is going to claim he or she KNOWS what will happen? Particularly an environmental projection.
We CAN say that we have good data. And our best estimation is that the Earth is warming.
Claiming you "KNOW" is just not true & damages your credibility because it is all too easy to demonstrate factors you do not know, which are relevant.
ccr5cxcr4 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Boom. This video summed up their their show refuting climate change.
So many scientists would disagree with these dummies that it is almost laughable. Don't get me wrong... I like these guys... they are extremely entertaining but one has to question their motives.
They said that they don't have enough evidence to refute climate change... in THIS video.
And then they go and create a show refuting climate change.
These guys... are on the ROFLcopter! Flying around looking for bullshit news...
Krumbz2003 3 years ago
Dude the episode talking about climate change ended with a sum up of, and I quote, "We just don't fuckin' know." Do some research bro.
Bub1029 3 years ago
I mean who in the right mind wants to use an energy source that's bound to deplete! So what im worried about is that this whole debate about man made global warming could actually hurt moving towards better forms efficient energy(which sadly is also attacked (not by P&T)but by other nuts who argue against the retarded nature hippies).It is very important that we make this distinction when pointing out what the real bullshit is!
BoosterFilmsInc 3 years ago
I hold the same notion as Penn & Teller do; that there is no real information to be sure about anthropocentric global warming but im sure all those environmental hippies are screwed up,but You know what? It doesn't matter if global warming is bullshit,using oil is stupid,its not renewable,it causes other forms of environmental and health issues,so global warming or not we should move away from stupid forms of energy.
BoosterFilmsInc 3 years ago
Go on and say it PENN .... Global warming I mean Global Climate change is BULLSHIT at least the fact that humans are the cause.
Come on you know in your mind and heart that these enviro nuts are full of rich white guilt and need something to hate themselves for. Just like any other religion.
ok1jwc 3 years ago
Anybody that finds Gore credible in the least obviously hasn't looked at the fine print on certain environmental surveys. Even those done by our scientific community. The problem with our field is merely a question of prestige. Who will get praise for a finding? On the hint of any little possibility they announce something. Right now the evidence is pointing to hoax. It's amazing the lengths people exaggerate such ordeals. I tell you we are a marvel and my memories leave no doubt of this.
Carcer117 3 years ago 2
i dont get why the yanks treat Gore as the end all environmental argument. he won awards for raising awareness of global warming, not for researching it. he isn't a scientist just a public speaker. just because he was wrong doesn't mean all scientists are debunked
HypoMix 3 years ago
I find Al Gore to be credible. He basically summarizes the information coming out of the scientific community. If you think global warming is a hoax then maybe you lack fundamental understanding of science. I don't know.
Al Gore really has nothing to do with any of this. He is a terrific spokesperson and has done a great deal on getting this issue out there, but he has nothing to do with the climate crisis itself
Nightversionn 3 years ago
I loved this episode. Truly.
FYI:
- I get local jobs (bike/walk) or I work from home.
- I compost everything that can be (which of course generates CO2! OH SHIT)
- I buy organic when given the choice, but mostly I grow my own food organically.
- Everything I grow is either a fruit or a vegetable.
By all standards, I'm greener than these so-called "green advocates." The green movement is a money making plot, a marketing scheme. It is obnoxious to encounter it on an almost daily basis.
abyssquick 3 years ago 2
but the cgi polar bear drowned in that power point presentation of Al's...I guess cgi polar bears can swim 50 miles like real polar bears can.
JesuszillaCorp 3 years ago
can he say spidy senesce o well who cairs
stitch626123 3 years ago
Sorry Penn, there's a pretty good chance global warming is real.
That being said, I love the fact that he refuses to think with his gut. Thank god for atheists.
Nykytyne2 3 years ago
By what logic is it a pretty good chance? By amount of people who believe it? Like there's a pretty good chance God is real? I wonder why Bill Gates spends his guilt money on starving children and AIDS and MALARIA instead of helping the "World". Lack of evidence isn't proof of evidence.
Should prolly give up on the whole Global Warming until the scientists can agree on whats going on.
Vynjira 3 years ago 2
'The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is unequivocal. '- Al Gore op ed
Nightversionn 3 years ago
Actually, that's not true Night. The IPCC used the term "unequivocal" in their 2001 report. However, for their 2007 report they used "95% positive". Still shows their position but not the same meaning as "unequivocal".
cantonear1968 3 years ago
And BTW; just because it comes from the prophet Gore doesn't make it true.
cantonear1968 3 years ago 2
Well, I have to agree on that. I cannot take anyone's word for it. Some people are credible. I find Al Gore credible, and I don't have a problem quoting him
Nightversionn 3 years ago
OK then, 95% positive. I will try to make time to go back and look through it, but that's a pretty strong consensus, especially when talking about scientists agreeing on anything
Nightversionn 3 years ago
the IPCC also included major CO2 emitting companies, so chances are whatever the IPCC says, its actually much worse.
HypoMix 3 years ago
hey, yeah, well I agree, the IPCC is very conservative in what they report, as science has to be. I think it is much worse and it could very well be that we've crossed a tipping point in which case nothing much can be done to stop us from destroying the world
yeah, as a yank I can only say most people in this country are uneducated. yep, it's not about Al Gore at all is it? I'm not sure what you say he was wrong about, but yeah, I agree with both your posts, good to hear some rationality
Nightversionn 3 years ago
oh he wasn't overly wrong on any major points, but there was the odd point that was incorrect or dubious in An Inconvenient Truth and people grabbed it and started hooting about how flawed ALL of his arguments were, even though it was only a few minor points.
HypoMix 3 years ago
Yeah, I heard about that. They focused on some minor detail and totally avoided the big picture
Well, in our lifetime I think we'll be OK, let's hope the people and animals of the future are looked after as well. I really think mankind is capable of figuring out what to do. Well, let's hope so.
Nightversionn 3 years ago
A few minor points!? Well first off, he used the word "if" as much as as breathing air, even though his "if this happens" scenarios had no credible proof. As to "a few minor points" as the basis for most of his arguments he used the Michael Mann "hockey stick" graph even though this has totally been debunked, and even Mann himself admitted to using faulty math AND the IPCC did not use it in their 2007 report. His estimations for sea level rise (20 ft) were 6 times what the IPCC had prdicted....
cantonear1968 3 years ago
...and his prediction for a declining polar bear population flys in the face of all data showing that 14 of the 15 auroras of polars bears have increased in the last 40 years. These are not minor points; these are the crux of his argument to get everyone to buy his carbon credits.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
Polar bears were a bad example as they are hunted and reliable data is hard to come by; there are however many documented cases of creatures dyeing out from global warming such as Tuataras, many of the world frogs due to less mist in areas and spread of a fungus,etc. So he chose a cuddly creature instead of an ugly one that is at significant risk, the point is still the same that biodiversity is at risk. So again his major point stands even if the data has errors
HypoMix 3 years ago
And there have been thousands of species that have died because of temperature cooling. Species die out all the time; most of them having nothing to do with the actions of man. But the point, again, is that Gore pulled a lot of things out of his ass to fuel the fear around this topic.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
that fact that there is natural background extinction is not an excuse for allowing preventable extinctions.
he didn't pull things out of his arse he just included some common misconceptions. something that would be expected from a politician with no science training.
HypoMix 3 years ago 2
Why? Sticking with the extinctions argument, why should we interfere with our lives to prevent the extiction of a species? It's nice to have this argument when we are sitting in our warm homes typing away on a laptop, but if you are poor person in South America trying to eke out a living for you and your family, and it takes cutting down the natural habitat of a species on the brink of extinction, what would you do? Would you save that species or let your family starve to death?
cantonear1968 3 years ago
And hold on a second. Al Gore didn't jump out of the audience and give that presentation. He has been giving and working on that presentation for years. He knew every comment and every "fact" he gave and the effect it would have on people.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
i would teach the south Americans about agroforstry and how they can improve there farm productivity 4 fold with out the need to clear more land.
extinctions of one species often results in a boom of another. the loss of an insectivore can result in insect swarms that can wipe out crops resulting in starvations of people see the sparrow culling under mao.
HypoMix 3 years ago
Again, Hypo, a good discussion for the classroom, but I can't find any references where this form of farming is being utilized. Look, if this is possible and it can be used to save trees, and thus habitatas, I' ok for that. I'm endorsing wiping out species for fun. But I think we can get too comfortable in North America and implement poilicies for other people who don't enjoy the riches that we do.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
And as you're pointed out, species go extinct all the naturally, so eliminating one doesn't necessarily mean there will be a chain reaction resulting in the destruction of other habitats.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
Shoot! I'm NOT endorsing wiping out species for fun.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
im not from north America :)
the current clearing of vegetation in south America is cause by poverty, and yes, we cant be critical of farmers below the poverty line. however the reason that they are below the poverty line is because of government corruption and no investment in agricultural extension.
yes it shits me as well when greenies start bitching about how farmers are clearing land when its not their fault.
as they say its hard to be green when your in the red.
HypoMix 3 years ago 2
You know what, I've never heard that one before. I really like it! I hope you won't get mad when I steal it! :)
cantonear1968 3 years ago
haha go for it, its a common expression in Australian agriculture extension.
also don't lie, we all know wiping out species is fun
HypoMix 3 years ago
Michael Mann "hockey stick" graph WAS debunked yes, however since that report there have been at least 10 further studies that all show similar results, each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
The IPCCs predictions are conservative so of course they will be less than al gores worst case scenario. The figure is probably wrong but sea level rise IS occurring, so yeah minor error.
HypoMix 3 years ago
Wait, the IPCC has conservative predictions? And that makes it ok for Gore to increase his doomsday predictions for shock value? And please provide me with one of the 10 studies that have similiar results to the "hockey stick" graph because I have never heard of one other than the Mann graph. Because anything resembling a hockey stick on a temperature graph would mean that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age never happened.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
i would favorite this for the comments alone. They are a healthy discussion from opposing views that the readers will learn more from than any television show. penn and teller are still my heroes, though.
Kallisteezie 3 years ago
....you would quickly dismiss the notion that the community enjoys this "concensus" that you like to harbor. And I would argue that these "fringe denialists" would offer a more unbiased opinion than those that are members of, and subjected to, the political motivations of these organizations.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
while i may not agree with you, i do admire your ability to make sound argument through rational thinking and citation of sources.
Kallisteezie 3 years ago
Thank you Kalli. It's ok for people not to agree. I wouldn't say I have all the answers but I have done enough research to have doubts. As I have expressed.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
The consensus of the scientific community that global warming is happening is strong, and that human intervention is accelerating it. The major scientific groups are in agreement on this,
IPCC
NOAA
National Academy of Sciences (American)
British Royal Society
British Meteorological Office
And many many many more
Fringe denialist's claim they know more than these historical and professional organizations is only part of their ideological belief system, not science
Nightversionn 3 years ago 8
What you fail to realize is that the people who question the findings of the IPCC et al. have the same credentials, qualifications and standings that members of these organizations do. They are respected members of the scientific community who differ in their interpretation of the data. These scientists, and I have provided you with the names of many but I doubt you took the time to investigate them, are not "fringe denialist's" as you would label them. All you have to do is look...
cantonear1968 3 years ago
I challenge you to look into the scientists who dont believe in climate change. Try to find who funds their experiments and laboratories. What you will most likely find is that they are funded by oil companies or other energy producers.
farmer30303 3 years ago
I'm sorry Farmer; that's not how it works. I cn give you a very simple Wikipedia search:
"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"
Now you tell me from this list who has been bought by big oil.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
Timothy F. Ball
Consultant of "Friends of Science" (FOS). 1/3 of funds for this organization come from oil industry.
Robert M. Carter
Founding member of Australian Environment Foundation which according to an Inter Press Service report, is funded by "mostly mining, oil, tobacco and energy companies.
Vincent R. Gray
An executive of National Resources Stewardship Project NRSP - controlled by energy industry lobbyists.
farmer30303 3 years ago
Timothy F. Ball-Consultant for "Friends of Science"-1/3 funds from oil industry.
Robert M. Carter-Founding member of "Australian Environmental Foundation"-Funded by mining, oil ,tabacco, and energy companies
Vincent R. Gray-Executive of Ntaion Resources Stewardship Project-Controlled by energy industry lobbyist.
I have no more room for more examples. These were the first three on the list. Tell me what is your education on this subject.
farmer30303 3 years ago
....And is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award
And has won:MSFC Center Directors Commendation ; NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal ;AMS Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate. But let's not get off topic; you were presenting no argument for GW.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
he is an evolution denier, as well as a climate change skeptic
Gallup did a recent survey and found something like 1/3 of the U.S. population believes the sun revolves around the Earth...yipee
Nightversionn 3 years ago
Sciene has prevailed on this issue.
All people have to do is look outside and know that the weather is different already, it is changing
Nightversionn 3 years ago
What I'd like to know is why the lying global deniaist industry is still at work, don't you know president Bush finally acknowledged global warming this year at Kyoto?
Who are you trying to convince at this point, lol
Nightversionn 3 years ago
P&T offer a fact based, thoroughly researched, and emotion free debate to all of the stories they put on the air. You can disagree with them, but then you need to present evidence to dispute their claims. Believing that global warming is due entirely to man-made CO2 emissions because everyone else believes it is not having an opinion; it is following like a sheep. While man has had a minor effect the earth's climate, we are not the driving factor and no evidence suggests it will be catastrophic.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
They displayed a profound ignorance of science, nothing more
Nightversionn 3 years ago
And yet I have heard nothing from you to dispute their claims. I understand that you are basing your opinion on consensus but consensus is not fact. The science behind the claims you support is sorrily lacking and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
?????
You need to reverse your paragraph. YOU have not provided any evidence except for the spinning denialism of the global warming denialist industry. "I" have cited the IPCC and could also include the NOAA, The National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and the list of credible insitutions goes on and on
Nightversionn 3 years ago
How about this: P. Chylek, et al. 2004"Global warming and the Greenland ice sheet," Climate Change 63, 201-21. "Since 1940... data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend.... The Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend. Or this: Comiso, J. C., 2000, "Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ,"Journal of Climate 13: 1674-96.
Both satellite data and ground stations show slight cooling over the last 20 years
cantonear1968 3 years ago
Or this:Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, p. 330. "Natural climate variability on long time-scales will continue to be problematic for CO2 climate change analysis and detection." Lat one: Paul Reiter, et al, "Global warming and malaria: a call for accuracy," Lancet, 4, no. 1 (June 2004)."Many of these much-publicized predictions are ill informed and misleading
Now, I have provided peer reviewed evidence supporting my position. Where's yours?
cantonear1968 3 years ago
meticulous mumbo jumbo
Nightversionn 3 years ago
Boring!!!
Oh, look what I did. By your standard I just gave evidence.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
I don't need to "prove" anything, that's what we have the scientific community for
When I get on a plane or go to the hospital, do I have to debate current relevant research to get help? NO, that's what we have PROFESSIONALS for
Your game as juvenile
I refer to you read literature from all the major historic scientific institutions, the NOAA, NASA, IPCC, NAS and the list goes on and on and on. But of course I have to debate a bunch of nonsense with you
How stupid do you take people?
Nightversionn 3 years ago
Yes,but it is still your RESPONSIBILITY to ask questions,even from medical doctors,and research things so you know you are getting the correct information.I know the official line of these political organizations; I also have done RESEARCH and have found individuals who question the postions of these groups. (see Roy Spencer: senior scientist for climate studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama).I would recommend you read other opinions so can make informed judgments
cantonear1968 3 years ago
Roy Spencer does not even believe in evolution
puleaze...
Nightversionn 3 years ago
That is actually, once again, inaccurate. He believes in evolution but is open to the idea of creationism. They are not mutually exclusive. However, I only got that from Wikipedia, as I am sure you did. I have not spoken with him and I do not know his views on this subject.
cantonear1968 3 years ago
LOL, no, Roy Spencer is a well-known supporter of intelligent design
You can read his piece "Faith-Based Evolution" if you want some more interesting details
If this is the person you tout as your global denial savior, then you can have him
Nightversionn 3 years ago 2
You know, not only do you disparage a man's work without researching it, but now you attack his faith. And out of the hundreds of scientists I have listed for you this is the only one you have commented on. I think your indignation is disingenuous. But, for the record:
Roy Spencer was smart enought to be named U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASAs Aqua satellite...
cantonear1968 3 years ago
"What the fuck, write your own show!!!"
You can be stupid, duped, misinformed, but to be so lazy as to take all the right-wing global warming denialist fringe talking points as your script is beyond anything comprehensible.
I heard you do a piece on NPR once. I'm no huge fan of NPR but at lease I thought you had a brain!!!
Nightversionn 3 years ago 3
the whole point of the show is to think with your mind???? WTF
You clearly have none.
I watched the show, it was written by the right-wing. I know this because I come into contact with the propaganda regularly and you listed all the denialist right-wing talking points to a T right down the line, as if they wrote the whole show.
That the fuck, write your own show
Nightversionn 3 years ago
and now with this postscript, they admit climate change is not all bullshit. this is like posting on page 8 the correction of an error made on the front page.
phishfearme2 3 years ago
Actually sweetie they said more or less this at the end of the green episode. He got into a confessional box, and basically said: I have a confession to make: Global Warming...we don't know definitivly, so we can't really say it's bullshit, for it. -.- Please pay attention, Ok? ^_^
blindey 3 years ago
ok - good point. why did they feel they needed to produce this trailer/leader piece though. they say clearly that "there not enough evidence to refute it and there's some evidence that it's real" - don't you think that quite abit stronger than just saying "i don't know"?
phishfearme2 3 years ago
Basically because the burden of proving something is ALWAYS on the accusor. I believe X. Ok, so prove X to be real, and/or I can prove that X is false.
blindey 3 years ago 2
P&T have one of the best shows on TV (no bullshit) and the people they spotlite in this "green" episode deserve the bullshit moniker - but there were NO climatologist brought on (politicians and TV weathermen are NOT climtologists) to present the current scientific concensus opinion. this is the first time i'm calling this bullshit show bullshit.
phishfearme2 3 years ago
A climatologist is a "meteorologist" (or weatherman) who studies the effects of weather over time. This guy (the "weatherman") has been watching the weather for 4 decades. He has the same skill set as a climatologist. So your point is bullshit.
wdrroach 3 years ago 3