Penn & Teller on Global Warming

[bascule]

Anyone catch this? I can't say I was surprised, but I was certainly disappointed.

 

Their overall sentiment wasn't too bad. They did point out what a farce carbon offset schemes are, and found a bunch of people who were clueless and misinformed yet cashing in on others' good intentions.

 

However, rather than interviewing any climate scientists they trotted out some "free market" think tank bozo to make their point, and also the guy who started the weather channel. They usually manage to find scientists of higher caliber to make their point, but at the same time they usually aren't arguing against the scientific consensus.

 

The end of the episode featured Penn hopping into a confessional to admit that he can't say "global warming is bullshit" because he doesn't know. That was a nice touch. However it doesn't change the fact they're making specious claims that contradict known science.

[Pangloss]

This was a new episode?

[bascule]

Yes, season 6 episode 6: "Being Green"

 

Penn and Teller consider the popularity of the "green movement", a largely bogus and hypocritical philosophy that links sanctimonious politics to an "ethical" lifestyle while doing little or nothing to actually create a healthier ecosystem.

[Pangloss]

I really need to get Showtime unlocked again.

[ecoli]

nice quote bascule. Apt use of the word "sanctimonious."

 

It's interesting how a similar argument can be given though, to other causes like "The war against cancer" or bono's quest to end african poverty. I don't mind raising money for good causes, but do they hollywood stars who are so invested in this stuff actually care? And (especially in bono's case) do they think it'll actually work?

[Gilded]

Hmm good that you brought it up, as I apparently missed it. Oh well, going to watch it later today.

 

Edit: Alrighty then. Well, there was a lot of bullshit that I already knew to be bullshit, such as the new age ecowhatever and those shady carbon credit companies. I knew quite a bit of the statistics beforehand too and overall I didn't really get any wiser but I wasn't expecting to. Excellent entertainment nevertheless.

Edited July 28, 2008 by Gilded

[Sisyphus]

I haven't seen it, but based only on this thread, it sounds like their worthwhile arguments aren't against the science, just the efficacy of some of the things we're doing about it, e.g. "carbon trading." The rest just sounds like junk science and name-calling of well-meaning people. And even if they didn't frame it in that way, the description sounds like they're implicitly supporting politics that would "create a healthier ecosystem."

 

It's interesting how a similar argument can be given though' date=' to other causes like "The war against cancer" or bono's quest to end african poverty. I don't mind raising money for good causes, but do they hollywood stars who are so invested in this stuff actually care? And (especially in bono's case) do they think it'll actually work?[/quote']

 

It is of course impossible to say how much a given celebrity spokesperson for a given cause actually cares, and I don't see how it actually matters. Is your issue with the very idea of a "celebrity spokesperson" itself? Because personally I don't see any problem with that. Why shouldn't someone like Bono leverage his visibility and influence for a good cause? Is it fundamentally different from a very wealthy person leveraging his power (in the form of money) towards charitable causes?

Edited July 28, 2008 by Sisyphus