Penn & Teller

NO MERRI

neglected?

2022 ANTI-MASK RALLY --> 180 NO SEAT NELT BUT NOT DRIVE DRUNK

---

4 26

0:4848 secondsfan of James Randy, and why I do what I do today on this very channel. But back then, you know, they were never really

0:5656 secondsgood at critical thinking. They knew that psychics were phony because they knew the magic tricks the psychics were

1:041 minute, 4 secondslying about not using, but their skepticism,

1:091 minute, 9 secondsso to speak, was really just based on their capital L libertarianism. That's why their Showtime TV show

1:181 minute, 18 secondsfeatured them debunking topics like the government trying to ban smoking inside bars and restaurants in order to protect

1:251 minute, 25 secondsworkers and other patrons from the dangers of secondhand smoke. That wasn't something they did in season 8 when they

1:331 minute, 33 secondswere running low on topics. That was episode 5 of season 1. That season ended with them debunking climate change. And then they went on to target veganism,

1:421 minute, 42 secondsschool violence, recycling, yoga, exercise, college, hair, gun control,

1:481 minute, 48 secondsthe Endangered Species Act, reparations for slavery, hybrid cars, NASA, the United Nations, taxation in general, and

1:571 minute, 57 secondscriticism of Walmart. Like they were against the criticism. They were pro

2:042 minutes, 4 secondsWalmart. So yeah, I was let's say skeptical that they might have anything of import to tell anyone about the

2:122 minutes, 12 secondsdangers of junk science, but happily I was wrong. They are all these years...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQKLLTxY-8Q

---

In Penn & Teller's first season of their documentary television show, Bullshit, Hill was interviewed and her motivations were questioned by Penn Jillette and Patrick Moore, a former founder of Greenpeace.^[22]

---

Penn Jillette: Trump Jr. mistook my fascination with his father’s mental problems as affection

Raw Story

Magician and former “Celebrity Apprentice” contestant Penn Jillette on Thursday explained what it was like to spend time with Donald Trump. Jillette said on the Joe Rogan Experience that Trump…

more techbros bs, sadly

firemylasers wrote seralini and other pro-gmo swill on rationalwiki

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

gmo art starts with

Interviewer: Critics say, with genetically modified food we could end hunger. We could feed billions of people that we currently are not. What do you respond to that?

Hippie #1: Uhh, yeah, we *could* feed billions of people, but *they might grow four eyes, you know? I mean *YOU DON'T KNOOOW, you can't play with nature!

Hippie #2: What kind of people would they be? What kind of people would we *be creating*, you know? You are what you eat!

Penn Jillette: ...Well, I guess she eats: shallow, hateful, self-centered bullshit! We can't imagine how, but somehow these folks have forgotten that most people don't have the option of hopping on down to the Piggly-Wiggly and bonding with the produce. When the whole world has plenty of food, we'd love to hear this asshole's advice. But we're certainly not going to mistake it for information.

AlterNet [1] / By CJ Werleman [2]

Why Atheist Libertarians Are Part of America's 1 Percent Problem

*:{December 3, 2013

In the days running up to Thanksgiving, Walmart urged its workers to donate food to their most in-need colleagues. You know, instead of Walmart having to pay said workers a livable wage. When people ask me what libertarianism looks like, I tell them that. By people I mean atheists, because for some stupid reason, far too many of my non-believer brethren have hitched their wagon to the daftest of all socio-economic theories.

It doesn’t help when atheist luminaries publicly extol their libertarianism. Penn Jillette writes, “What makes me a libertarian is what makes me an atheist—I don’t know. If I don’t know, I don’t believe….I’ll wait for real evidence and then I’ll believe.”

Well, the only excuse Jillette has for his breathtaking ignorance is that he earns his living performing as a Las Vegas magician. Also, he graduated from a clown college.

Famed science author and editor of Skeptic magazine Michael Shermer says he became a libertarian after reading Ayn Rand’s tome Atlas Shrugged. Wait, what? That’s the book that continues to inspire college sophomores during the height of their masturbatory careers, typically young Republicans (nee fascists). But unless your name is Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), most people grow out of the, “Screw you, I have mine” economic principles bestowed by the Russian-born philosopher by the time they’re legally old enough to order their first beer.

Atheists like to joke that faith makes a virtue out of not thinking about things, but the belief in libertarianism is an act of faith given libertarianism has not only never been tried before anywhere, but most of the world’s leading economists denounce it as a folly that would exacerbate the central economic challenges we face today—most significantly, wealth disparity.

When I hear an atheist say he is a libertarian, I know he's given absolutely no thought to it other than the fact that he likes the sound of no foreign wars and no drug laws. The aphorism that libertarians are Republicans with bongs is just about spot-on. Thinking Ron Paul is a genius because he’s anti-war and anti-drug laws is like thinking a Big Mac is good for you because it has lettuce and a pickle.

Atheists who embrace libertarianism often do so because they believe a governing body represents the same kind of constructed authority they’ve escaped from in regards to religion. This makes sense if one is talking about a totalitarian regime, but our Jeffersonian democracy, despite its quirky flaws, is government by the people for the people, and it was the federal government that essentially built the great American middle-class, the envy of the world. In an op-ed titled “Abject Failure of Reaganomics,” [3] Robert Parry writes, “From the New Deal policies of the 1930s through other reforms of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, from Social Security to Wall Street regulation to labor rights to the GI Bill to the Interstate Highway System to the space program’s technological advances to Medicare and Medicaid to the minimum wage to civil rights.”

But then came the period of Reagan’s holy trinity: privatization, deregulation and free trade. Now here we are today, facing the largest economic crisis since the 1930s. Libertarianism will serve only to replace government with a feudal serf model, which is what corporations are pushing so hard to achieve. In short, libertarianism can be described as anti-communism or "capitalism with the gloves off." With communism, property is theft; capitalists are thuggish villains; workers rule; the poor are oppressed. With libertarianism, property is sacred; all governments are bad; capitalists are noble heroes; unions are evil; and the poor are pampered good-for-nothings.

Libertarians love abstract, fact-free arguments because there are no facts to support their arguments. Atheists love facts, so I don’t understand why so many are libertarians. I guess they viewed a YouTube documentary on how the Federal Reserves is the source of all evil, and yelled, “Uh huh!”

Robert Reich says that one of the most deceptive ideas embraced by the Ayn Rand-inspired Right is that the free market is natural, and exists outside and beyond government. He writes:

“In reality, the 'free market' is a bunch of rules about 1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); 2) on what terms (equal access to the Internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections?); 3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?); 4) what’s private and what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); 5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on. These rules don’t exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don’t 'intrude' on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren’t 'free' of rules; the rules define them.”

When it comes to wealth disparity and income inequality, America is facing its greatest moral crisis since the Civil Rights movement, and its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. We are here today because of the influence of Wall Street when it comes to economic policy; the destruction of labor; the serf-level minimum wage; and the deregulation, monopolization and privatization of industries. Libertarianism will not only push us deeper into becoming a winner-takes-all society, it will help religious organizations fill the vacuum created by the destruction of government.

Ultimately, atheist libertarians are not part of the solution; atheist libertarians are part of the problem.

See more stories tagged with:

libertarian [4]

---

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/belief/why-atheist-libertarians-are-part-americas-1-problem

Links:

[1] http://alternet.org

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/cj-werleman

[3] http://consortiumnews.com/2013/10/17/the-abject-failure-of-reaganomics/

[4] http://www.alternet.org/tags/libertarian-0

[5] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B**=**

Penn & Teller: Bullshit!: Season 6, Episode 6

Being Green(24 Jul. 2008)

===

← Back to Original Article

'I don't know' -- and that's no act

July 03, 2008|Penn Jillette | Penn Jillette is the louder, bigger half of the magic/comedy team of Penn & Teller.

My partner, Teller, and I are professional skeptics. We do magic tricks in our live show in Las Vegas, and we have a passion for trying to use what we've learned about fooling people to possibly get a little closer to the truth. Our series on Showtime tries to question everything -- even things we hold dear.

James Randi is our inspiration, our hero, our mentor and our friend. Randi taught us to use our fake magic powers for good. Psychics use tricks to lie to people; Randi uses tricks to tell the truth. Every year, in Vegas, the James Randi Educational Foundation gathers together for a conference as many like-thinking participants as you can get from people who question whenever people think alike. There are smart, famous and groovy speakers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. There's lots of real science stuff with real scientists questioning things that a lot of people take for granted, like ESP, UFOs, faith healing and creationism. It's a party.

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2008/jul/03/opinion/oe-jillette3

Teller and I are always honored to be invited. We don't wear our usual matching gray suits, and Teller doesn't stay in his silent character. Teller chats up a storm. It's not a gig; it's hanging out with friends. During our loose Q&A period this year, someone asked us about global warming, or climate change, or however they're branding it now. Teller and I were both silent on stage for a bit too long, and then I said I didn't know.

I elaborated on "I don't know" quite a bit. I said that Al Gore was so annoying (that's scientifically provable, right?) that I really wanted to doubt anything he was hyping, but I just didn't know. I also emphasized that really smart friends, who knew a lot more than me, were convinced of global warming. I ended my long-winded rambling (I most often have a silent partner) very clearly with "I don't know." I did that because ... I don't know. Teller chimed in with something about Gore's selling of "indulgences" being BS, and then said he didn't know either. Penn & Teller don't know jack about global warming ... next question.

The next day, I heard that one of the non-famous, non-groovy, non-scientist speakers had used me as an example of someone who let his emotions make him believe things that are wrong. OK. People who aren't used to public speaking get excited and go off half-cocked. I'm used to public speaking and I go off half-cocked. I live half-cocked. Cut her some slack.

Later, I was asked about a Newsweek blog she wrote. Reading it bugged me more than hearing about it. She ends with: "But here was Penn, a great friend to the skeptic community, basically saying, 'Don't bother me with scientific evidence, I'm going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore.' ... Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things."

Is there no ignorance allowed on this one subject? I took my children to see the film "Wall-E." This wonderful family entertainment opens with the given that mankind destroyed Earth. You can't turn on the TV without seeing someone hating ourselves for what we've done to the planet and preaching the end of the world. Maybe they're right, but is there no room for "maybe"? There's a lot of evidence, but global warming encompasses a lot of complicated points: Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?

To be fair (and it's always important to be fair when one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous), "I don't know" can be a very bad answer when it is disingenuous. You can't answer "I don't know if that happened" about the Holocaust.

But the climate of the whole world is more complicated. I'm not a scientist, and I haven't spent my life studying weather. I'm trying to learn what I can, and while I'm working on it, isn't it OK to say "I don't know"?

I mean, at least in front of a bunch of friendly skeptics?

penn & teller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v4Q9Wv10Ho&NR=1 2008

note rational wiki guy says hippie vs hack st'd MO; also show that all green ppl are making $ but never pt out that hacks are;

Penn & Teller : Crap - Global Warming 30 yo time mag 1974 careless emissions; carbon sinner, buy conscience dis-illusion (ethos) 28 min fu now must pay; local ppl (no travel b/c bad) Coleman gmamerica in 70's

aggressily pushy asshole, you'd think he's done something; congr test planetary emergency [acapulco]

solar cycles //

prophecying doom is nobel? trelson camel with shitbag on ass

condescending fuck, pritnyed email (outed?)

eco-anxiety melissa picket sta fe NM lic counselor; activate DNA, recurring comic relief

david kershon low carbon diet easy as 5$ whore 55K lbs co2; 1400 lvs change thermo

john charles cascade pol inst oregon; need co2 oregon envir council so expert; 3% hu co2; decay plant, volcano and forest fires (smokey w/ cig)

stone: you are connected to earth (river rock) vs gravel); grateful ; grounded (multi cult gp)

vol guilt fine: sell indulgences , a fun tax/sin credits; martin luther cried BS ended buy carbon credits, shows www; invest in alt energy , plant tree; buy berkinstocks and go to UCB; she makes $ on site; go for st'd (work with us bitch?)

carbon neutral b/c all we do puts co2; cookies trucked 100 mi; 16 oz ; light vs dk brew

ctt guy; pet rocks

labyrinth (not, no choice, not fun, slow) to get clear, get answer (all about me)

gore mia; dreamy ; tenn ctr pol res thru public recs req 2006 20 room mansion vs 11K 17x Drew 2007 sol panels, change bulbs; buys credits; from his own co Gen Invest Mgmt start 2004; drew got 12 death threats, burn in hell, hillbilly jackasses [fe admits they use lang] env = religion, prophet

poor ppl hurt by carbon tax will raise price of fuel, will kill (cct) like DDT 10's of mill of deaths;

walla walla power for a prison; hug ; we are hitting starbucks in suv

grow a dick ; we don't know, we worked on it; we don't know how to fix, but cut back on quality of life

all forgiven; by watching (by allowing them to use footage)

why important to gaff/ outtake

Penn and Teller are Penn Jillette and Raymond Teller; Las Vegas headliners whose act is an amalgam of illusion and comedy. They are hosts of the Showtime network television show Penn and Teller: Bullshit!.

Contents [hide]

Cato Institute

Penn and Teller are fellows at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC. Penn Jillette is an H.L. Menkin Research Fellow and writes the "Final Word" column for Regulation Magazine. A profile of Penn on the Cato Institute's website describes it as a program that "looks to debunk junk science, scares and scams with reason and logic." ^[1] Cato has received financial support from the oil industry, tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry and Wal-Mart, as well as conservative foundations like the Koch Family Foundations and Scaife Foundations oil fortunes. See also Cato Institute.

Contrarianism

Penn and Teller have have lampooned such subjects as global warming, environmentalism, recycling, smoking bans, alcohol bans, twelve step programs, gun control, alternative medicine, organic food, vegetarianism, animal rights, anti-hunting, anti-animal testing, religion and metaphysics, prostitution bans, drug bans (especially marijuana), the death penalty, restrictions on immigration, creationism and government surveillance of citizens. They've defended Wal-Mart, the flat tax, gay marriage, and pornography.^[2]

Episodes

Global warming & environmentalism

An April of 2003 "Environmental Hysteria" episode ^[3]attempted to "prove the global warming crisis, among other things, was created by the out of control imagination of hysterical hippies and environmentalists." A point-by-point rebuttal was done by Logical Science.^[4]

When subsequently challenged at the James Randi Educational Foundation's The Amazing Meeting 6 ^[5] about their views on global warming, Penn Jillette published a piece in the Los Angeles Times saying "I don't know ^[6] about climate change" (after labeling it "bullshit").^[7]

Animal testing/animal rights issues

An April of 2004 episode was heavily critical of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). According to the synopsis:

"PETA is against all forms of medical testing involving animals - regardless of the potential benefits to human beings... PETA supports banning the ownership of pets and advocates releasing them into the wild... It's enough to make a vegetarian eat meat!"^[8]

PETA does not "ban the ownership of pets" or advocate "releasing them into the wild". PETA is actually very clear and concise about their views on vivisection as a danger to human health. Since they (like many animal advocates, health advocates and scientists), consider animal testing to be misleading and dangerous, it cannot have "potential benefits for human beings". They advocate extensively for companion animals as well. See also PETA and animal testing, section 6.

Two corporate front groups also appeared in the episode. The program featured the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise(CDFE)^[citation ^needed] and David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) as a "consumer advocate". CCF and CDFE represent collectively, industries such as oil, tobacco, fast food, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and vivisection, etc. Both CCF and Cato receive funding from Phillip Morris, which contracts animal testing to the notoriously abusive Covance Laboratories. Covance and other companies represented by CCF, have been subjects of PETA investigations. See also :{Richard Berman :(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:cares about animals: clients exposed.

Religion & spirituality

Much of their act revolves around its shock value. Episodes have included profanity laced parodies of religion and spirituality. Subjects of derision have included the Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa. In May of 2005, the program “Holier than thou”, portrayed Mother Theresa and her Sisters of Charity as “cruel, exploitative, self-serving nun(s) who ripped off the poor.” According to Bill Donohue:

"We are told that Mother Teresa intentionally let the poor suffer, providing neither beds nor bathroom facilities. ‘She had the f—king coin and pissed it away on nunneries,’ says Penn. As for the nuns who worked with Mother Teresa, they are referred to as ‘f—king c—ts." ^[9]

According to a synopsis of the show:

"Penn and Teller reveal that Mahatma Gandhi was a racist, Mother Teresa a religious zealot who was happy to see the poor suffer, and that the Dalai Lama is not as squeaky clean as he seems." ^[10]

Contact

Official Showtime site (blocked to non-US computers)

Web address: http://www.pennandteller.com/

Email: press@penn-teller.com

Articles & sources

SourceWatch articles

References

↑ Penn Jillette, H.L. Mencken Research Fellow, Cato Institute, accessed March 2009
↑ Penn and Teller: Bullshit! Episodes, Showtime.com, accessed January 2009
↑ Penn & Teller: Bullshit! "Environmental Hysteria: Season 1, Episode 13, Showtime.com, April 2003
↑ Defending Science from Vested Interests, Logical Science, accessed December 2008
↑ James Randi Eductional Foundtion's - The Amazing Meeting 6, Logical Science, accessed September 2009
↑ Penn Jillette 'I don't know'--and that's no act, Los Angeles Times, July 2008
↑ Mind Games: Penn & Teller "Bull****" artists - get ready to change their "skeptical" stance on climate change, Mises.org, accessed September 2009
↑ Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" Bull! PETA, Season 2, Episode 1, Magictelevision.org, April 2004
↑ Catholic group calls Showtime’s mockery of Mother Teresa, vicious, monstrous, Catholic News Agency, May 2005
↑ Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Holier Than Thou: Season 3, Episode 5, The Internet Movie Database, May 2005

Categories:

Penn and Teller: Bullshit!

Defending Science from Vested Interests

From Logical Science

In Episode 13, season 1of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! they try to prove the global warming crisis, among other things, was created by the out of control imagination of hysterical hippies and environmentalists. This is why the episode is titled "Environmental Hysteria". We would just like to point out that Penn Jillette is a research fellow of the ExxonMobil and Industry funded CATO institute which has strong minarchist leanings. This gives Penn Jillete a conflict of interest when it comes to any topic that might require government regulation. During the show he puts Tobacco and Oil funded lobbyists against hippie college protesters. If a fair match was their intent they should have those lawyers up against any of the scientists on this massive list. Granted the show was officially about "hysteria" and not science itself but that doesn't excuse them for grossly misrepresenting a very strong scientific consensus and providing facts thats are demonstrably false. The following is a quoted, sourced, and time stamped point by point analysis of their show (google video). It will focus on the facts presented by Penn & Teller's "experts":

10:28 Bjorn Lomborg presents his book

Lomborg is an associate professor of statistics at Denmark's University of Aarhus. Hehas been widely criticized for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. Scientific American has a 12 page article titled "Misleading Math about the Earth" dedicated solely to debunking Lomborg's book. The prestigious peer-review scientific journal Nature also joined the battleground and described Lomborg's work as 'employs the strategy of those who argue that... Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis'. Grist Mill certainly didn't treat Lomborg kindly as they lined up a whole host of leading scientists to critique his work. And National Academy of Science member Norman Myers says Lomborg lacks "a preliminary understanding of the science in question." Regardless of whether or not Lomborg is right or wrong, Penn & Teller may have done better by choosing someone that is a little more respected among mainstream scientists. More information on Lomborg can be found here.

:{_

13:30 Penn says 1998 was the peak (temperature wise).

}:_

Not anymore, according to NASA 2005 was the hottest year. Penn Jillete also left out a little thing called El Nino which gave 1998 a nice artificial boost. In defense of Penn Jillette, the show was made in 2002. However, this does not excuse the fact that he cherry picked the year of El Nino. If he had interviewed a mainstream scientist Penn & Teller would have known this. If he had looked at a simple line graph he would have also seen an obvious trend in temperatures. The 1998 argument stems from Bob Carter and his claims are debunked in full here.

:{_

13:42 Jerry Taylor from CATO says "If we plot temperatures... put them on a graph and draw a trend line, we will know what is going to happen with global warming in the next 100 years.

}:_

Jerry Taylor, might want to comment on this list of quotes or even this graph:

This is known as the "hockey stick". It is arguably the most analyzed graph in the history of science. The hockey stick continues to be affirmed by realclimate, the IPCC, the national academies of 11 countries, Wahl and Amman, and every major American scientific society with relativant expertise.

*For a nonscewed temperature scale please check the IPCC

15:08 Jerry Taylor from CATO claims scientists predicted an Ice age

Real climate covered this topic in their article titled The Global Cooling Myth. William Connolley has also made a hobby out of debunkingthis myth. There is a BIG difference between peer-review scientific literature and regular magazines and newspapers. While there were some questions about aerosols blocking sunlight, the global cooling threat was not predicted in the peer-review scientific literature and it was not predicted by the National Academy of Sciences.

Taylors exact quote from Penn and Teller's show: "In the mid 70's we were told pollution is going to cause a new ice age... The very same scientists who argued an ice age was coming because of industrial pollution then shifted gears and argued industrial pollution will bring on a greenhouse warming world with virtually no breath in between." It would be nice if he actually named which NAS reports and scientific journals he was talking about. If you find any peer-review journals predicting imminent global cooling please email them to us or William Connolley. As of right now we can't find any. Jerry Taylor is a Senior Fellow at the industry funded CATO institute.

_:{

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

_}:

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

_:{

25:40: Patrick Moore says the "best science tells us less than 1% of the species will go extinct in the next 100 years."

_}:

{{{{{This is also false. A peer review paper from Nature titled "}Extinction risk from climate change{" showed a significant percentage of our planets species could become extinct by 2050. As an added note, the excess CO2 is also increasing the oceans acidity by turning into carbonic acid. The acidification of the ocean could drive all known forms of coral to extinction }by 2065{. }¹⁰,

11,

12^ In the Discovery Channel's show "Global Warming: what you need to know with Tom Brokaw" NASA's James Hansen talks about the extinction of 50% of the planets species by 2050 being a realistic possibility due to ocean acidification and other mechanisms. The World Wildlife Fund says: "Without action, climate change will cause the extinction of countless species and destroy some of the world's most precious ecosystems." So what exactly is "the best science" in Patrick Moore's mind? Again, he doesn't mention their source. This may be hard to believe for many of our readers so here are some more sources on climate change and species extinction:}}}}

Blogs, Mainstream Media & Press Releases:

BBC: Acid oceans spell doom for coral

Los Angeles Times: A Primeval Tide of Toxins

The New York Times: British Scientists Say Carbon Dioxide Is Turning the Oceans Acidic

University of Minnesota ecology professor David Tilman: Species extinction rate speeding up

realclimate.org: The Acid Ocean – the Other Problem with CO~2 Emission

San Francisco Chronicle: EXTINCTION CRISIS FOR AMPHIBIANS

NCAR: Report Warns about Carbon Dioxide Threats to Marine Life

World Wildlife Fund: Climate Change

Discovery Channel: "Global Warming: what you need to know with Tom Brokaw"

Peer-Review Scientific Journals & Government Reports

Thomas et. al., Nature 8 January 2004: Extinction risk from climate change*

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Climate change hastens population extinctions

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe

Pearson & Palmer, Science 10 December 1999: Seawater pH and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Pennisi, ScienceNOW 5 July 2006: Coral Face Death From Above

NSF, NOAA, USGS Report: Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and other Marine Calcifiers

*interviews w/ Gavin Schmidt from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies show this is the source of the Discovery Channel's info

End Notes:

Penn & Teller did bring up some good points. For example, they managed to get college aged protesting hippies to sign petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide which is also known as water. This showed that people will take information at face value and that can be a very dangerous thing. By the same token many of the industry lobbyists interviewed on that show were speaking falsehoods (e.g. the global cooling myth) to discredit mainstream scientists. So you really have to watch your sources. Penn & Teller used these falsehoods to debunk "hysteria" that lined up very well with the scientific consensus. If they are going to critique "environmental hysteria" it might be wise for them to focus on a movement that doesn't agree with the scientific consensus. Misinformation is a double edged sword. Former Greenpeace member and cofounder Patrick Moore spent a considerable amount of time denouncing the motives of Greenpeace. The problem is that Greenpeace is not an accredited scientific institution and does not represent the scientific consensus. So while Greenpeace may go overboard when it comes to certain dangers with fusion and fission power, nothing mentioned in the "Environmental Hysteria" show that was attributed to Greenpeace differed from the scientific consensus. To make matters even more complicated Patrick Moore owns Greenspirit_{ whose clients consist of industries that have to deal with environmental regulations. }_Moore's current business gives him a conflict of interest. Penn & Teller's Bullshit! started in 2003. This was after the Royal Society's 2001 press release on climate change which was signed by 16 countries. For more about the consensus please go here. Since so many scientists agree, maybe they should have talked to scientists instead of oil lobbyists to get their environmental data and scientific facts. If this show really was about "hysteria" then why did the only post-puberty 'environmentalist' interviewed on the show, Ross Gelbspan, represent the scientific consensus and undisputable facts far more accuratetly than the oil-funded experts used by Penn & Teller?

[Mind Games:] Penn & Teller - "Bull****" artists - get ready to change their "skeptical" stance on climate change

There's an interesting bit of arm-twisting, self-deception, defensiveness and reluctant position-shifting going on in the libertarian science skeptics crowd, and Penn and Teller seem to be letting the social pressure help clear their minds.

At James Randi's gathering of skeptics in Las Vegas last month (The Amazing Meeting 6), apparently both Penn and Teller very reluctantly conceded in response to audience q & a that they now "don`t know" whether or not "global warming is Bull****", but that they certainly hate Al Gore.

After being mocked and criticized by **Sharon Begley** (Newsweek science columnist) for "basically saying, don’t bother me with scientific evidence, I’m going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore" and for illustrating Begley's talking point at the meeting that our beliefs are often NOT based on reason (says Begley, "Both Penn and Teller are well-known libertarians and supporters of the libertarian Cato Institute, which has been one of the leaders in spreading doubt about global warming. Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things."), **Penn Jillette** offered up a rather whiny response at the LA Times (in an op-ed defensively titled "Climate change? Once more, 'I don't know'; Being honest about not knowing enough of the science to make a judgment isn't the same as an outright denial"):

During our loose Q&A period this year, someone asked us about global warming, or climate change, or however they're branding it now. Teller and I were both silent on stage for a bit too long, and then I said I didn't know.

_{

}_

I elaborated on "I don't know" quite a bit. I said that Al Gore was so annoying (that's scientifically provable, right?) that I really wanted to doubt anything he was hyping, but I just didn't know. I also emphasized that really smart friends, who knew a lot more than me, were convinced of global warming. I ended my long-winded rambling (I most often have a silent partner) very clearly with "I don't know." I did that because ... I don't know. Teller chimed in with something about Gore's selling of "indulgences" being BS, and then said he didn't know either. Penn & Teller don't know jack about global warming ... next question. ...

Is there no ignorance allowed on this one subject? ... You can't turn on the TV without seeing someone hating ourselves for what we've done to the planet and preaching the end of the world. Maybe they're right, but is there no room for "maybe"? There's a lot of evidence, but global warming encompasses a lot of complicated points: Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?

_{

}_

To be fair (and it's always important to be fair when one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous), "I don't know" can be a very bad answer when it is disingenuous. You can't answer "I don't know if that happened" about the Holocaust.

But the climate of the whole world is more complicated. I'm not a scientist, and I haven't spent my life studying weather. I'm trying to learn what I can, and while I'm working on it, isn't it OK to say "I don't know"?

I mean, at least in front of a bunch of friendly skeptics?

Of course, given the tricks that we play on ourselves, it's entirely possible that Begley did not accurately capture the gist of Penn and Teller's remarks, but even if they both said they "don't know" at TAM6, it's a lack of knowledge that rather curiously didn't prevent them from spending the past five years mocking climate change concerns.

Ron Bailey, science correspondent for Reason, another libertarian climate skeptic who prominently changed his mind two years ago, summarizes here, where he quotes from both Begley and Penn. Bailey both schools and chides Penn, while acknowledging that there is ample room to debate policy:

Is it happening? Did we cause it? Yes, the balance of the evidence is that it is happening. Is it bad? Relative to what? Can we fix it? Maybe. But at what's the best way to do so? Are immediate deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions necessary? Some analysts don't think so. Government-forced conservation? Perhaps there is another way. Skepticism is certainly merited when it comes to proposals that aim to solve global warming.

Finally, is it OK to disdain Al Gore? Sure it is. But even an annoying self-important scold can be right sometimes.

It seems to me that Penn and Teller's defensiveness clearly signals a shift in their position from broad disagreement with global warming, both on science and on policy, towards conceding the core of the science while focussing on policy.

It's interesting that apparently that their shift was motivated not by a desire to be right on the science - after all, they have prominently mocked others on climate change without even seriously bothering to address the scientific evidence - but because of pressure from other skeptics who have already changed their own minds.

It's also interesting that Penn and Teller, who are not known for showing much concern for the feelings of those whom they mock and ridicule, are essentially saying to their fellow skeptics, "hey, this criticism from friends hurts our feelings". It's very interesting that while they talk about their friends they are careful to put Begley at a distance, referring to her as "one of the non-famous, non-groovy, non-scientist speakers" (a nice case of misdirection, since even if Begley is less famous or groovy than Penn and Teller, they certainly aren't scientists either) and complaining that SHE is the one who is "one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous".　Hey, that nerd Sharon Begley is being MEAN to us! they say.

Yep. So while Penn and Tell grudgingly concede that maybe all of those AGW "religionists" might be onto something, they need to downplay their own change of mind by continuing to disdain Al Gore, and by directing their ire at that b*tch, Sharon Begley. Not particularly noble, but a change of mind nonetheless.

This may dishearten others who passionately believe that puny man with his fabulous technology and booming numbers can't possibly influence the Earth's climate, but I predict that many will find ways to distract themselves from Penn and Teller's shift, such as by attacking Sharon Begley and the evil MSM.

Published Sun, Jul 6 2008 3:41 AM by TokyoTom

Filed under: AGW, Ron Bailey, climate change, Al Gore, Sharon Begley, Penn, Teller, Newsbusters

ratiionalwiki

Penn Jillette and Teller (born Raymond Joseph Teller) are a team of professional magicians who, in the vein of James Randi, have become debunkers of various irrational concepts. Outside of their longtime Las Vegas stage show, they are best known for their Showtime series Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, in which they investigate and debunk topics of interest. The show began in 2003 and concluded its eighth season in 2010, ending too abruptly for them to do the promised "Bullshit of Bullshit" finale. Their new ongoing show, Tell a Lie, does not appear to be based on skepticism.

For the uninitiated, Penn is "the big one with the long hair who talks," and Teller is "the short one who doesn't talk," although there do exist videos of Teller speaking if you are willing to plumb the depths of YouTube. As a general rule, Teller only speaks when he's not in character, but there are exceptions to that, such as the end scene of "Penn & Teller Get Killed"

Penn and Teller are controversial figures in the skeptic community because of their libertarian political views. A good rule of thumb to use may be that their episodes and discussions on religion, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories are great, but that your mileage may vary on episodes dealing with politics and economics.

Contents [hide]

[edit] The good stuff

Several episodes of Bullshit! have become classics. One episode that ripped the Catholic Church and the Pope a new hole (not the Goatsie this time) ended up being so controversial that it was not included on that season's DVD set and is never rerun. However, why the episode was "disappeared" has never been explained.^[1] Other episodes dealing with topics of interest to rational skeptics include debunkings of creationism and intelligent design, the Bible as a source of historical accuracy and morals, New Age crap, homeopathy, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and Moon landing conspiracy theories. Another popular episode deals with the myth of video game violence.

Aside from religion, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, politics, and economics, some episodes of Bullshit! deal with societal trends, like bottled water or stress. The veracity of these episodes varies.

[edit] Bullshit on Bullshit!

The pair have been criticized for using appeals to emotion, especially on topics related to libertarianism. For example, in an episode about the Endangered Species Act, the show uses a highly disabled woman in a wheelchair who cannot build her dream house on a specific lot because it is also a habitat for an endangered bird as an argument against the Act. Whatever valid criticisms they may have of a subject are sometimes obscured by over-reliance on shock and emotion instead of logic and facts. However, Penn and Teller at least have the decency to openly admit both their usage of emotional appeals and their bias.

Some episodes of the show feature individuals from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, to argue Penn and Teller's position. Penn and Teller are both fellows at the Institute but the potential conflict of interest is never mentioned.

Penn is best known for his humorously rude ad hominem attacks against people who support the position being questioned by the show. The format of Bullshit! is such that individuals on both sides of an issue are interviewed by themselves, not in a debate format, allowing Jillette to take potshots at them (through post-production narration) without their knowledge. Jillette has explained this is a comedy tactic (also intended to cast him as the polar opposite of Teller, who never speaks) and that he does not really support insulting a person if you debate them, and it also forms part of their apparent defence against libel as it's fine to insult people quite dramatically, but you can't call them charlatans, as explained on the show.

[edit] Gun control

One of the "experts" presented in the "Gun Control" episode is John Lott, who has conducted (and fabricated) some highly questionable "research."^[2]

[edit] Anti-environmentalism

Bullshit! tends to run into the most trouble whenever it wades into environmental issues, as the duo tends to take an anti-environmental stance, either by explicit denialism or implicitly by cherry-picking actual bullshit surrounding environmental issues and the gullible hippies who buy into it while failing to mention that the actual science itself is not bullshit. An example is Season 1 Episode 13 "Environmental Hysteria", where they dismiss outright global warming, and use an expert witness for their position a writer from the Cato Institute, who (among other things) is a DDT denialist.

[edit] Global warming

Perhaps their most controversial opinion is that they were originally global warming denialists. Penn originally claimed that there was not enough evidence to make a decision, saying "we don't know." In the episode "Environmental Hysteria" in the first season of BS!, the pair present Bjorn Lomborg as an "expert" to "debunk" environmental hysteria, but neglect to mention the fact that his work has been excoriated by actual scientists and not just eco-nuts. Jerry Taylor of Cato is also trotted out to repeat some PRATTs like the mythical "global cooling" consensus of the 1970s and make up some figures about warming trends to conclude that future warming will be less than one degree Celsius.^[3]

A later episode, "Being Green," recycles some of their earlier bullshit, and adds in criticism of carbon offsets (which are often, but not always, bullshit), commits the Argumentum ad Gorem, and pulls off the classic dihydrogen monoxide hoax.^[4] The general "expert interview" format for these episodes consists of hippies vs. think tank hacks -- the fact that scientists are ignored should set off your own bullshit detector.

However, in 2008, Penn stated in an interview that anthropogenic global warming is real and that his reluctance to "come out" was due to the political climate surrounding the issue.^[5]

[edit] Second-hand smoke

In the episode "Second-hand Smoke/Baby Bullshit," P&T rely on another Cato "expert" (detecting a pattern here?) to declare that second-hand smoke is harmless. Their main objection is to a 1993 EPA report, which they say shows no statistically significant risks but claims that there are anyway. This claim relies on a technicality surrounding the cut-off for significant p-values -- although 0.05 is the most common number used, different kinds of studies and experiments may use a different significance level. Epidemiological studies sometimes use 0.1, and the results were significant at this level. In addition to this, the critics of the report falsely claim that a risk ratio of 2 or 3 is generally considered significant, but it's actually 1.1-1.3^[6] P&T later issued a correction when pressed on this.^[7]

[edit] Recycling

The "Recycling" episode also contains some misleading information. In fairness, they do point out that recycling aluminum is justified and there is some bullshit surrounding recycling, but they misrepresent some cost-benefit analysis numbers and seem to imply that recycling paper pollutes more than creating new paper.^[8][9] In the episode on recycling (Season 2 Episode 5) they commented that it costs more energy to recycle than it is to make a new plastic bottle. They include in the list of reasons for this the cost of transportation. This is a pretty classic fallacy in economics, because the cost of transportation is going to be there regardless, since you'll still have to transport it to a landfill. They also comment that cities often make a net loss on recycling, while failing to mention that this is also true of landfills, and that the recycled material is often then given or sold to manufacturers, so the city takes a loss, and you end up paying less for recycled goods. It should be noted that in a 10 questions asked by Reddit interview Penn expressed a shift in personal belief while researching the recycling episode, saying "it's not that we're not open minded, it's just that we're working on it. So our opinions don't change when we do the show, they change when we're working on the show." ^[10]

[edit] Animal welfare

The "PETA" episode again invites on questionable experts, such as David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization that lobbies on behalf of the fast food, alcohol, and tobacco industries.^[11] The show dismisses the animal rights movement by pointing out a few extremists who believe in using violence to achieve their ends and attempting to establish a spurious link between them and PETA (PETA officially opposes the use of violence^[12]), and interviewing a few hippies who make illogical arguments for animal liberation rather than intellectuals in the movement.^[13]

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Footnotes

↑ Penn and Teller's Vatican Episode Missing: Self-Censorship?, richarddawkins.net
↑ See Tim Lambert's debunking of *More Guns, Less Crime*.
↑ Logical Science's review of the episode.
↑ Massimo Pigliucci's review of the episode.
↑ 404? http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmelsx_penn-jillette-discusses-anthropogenic-climate-change_tech
↑ Mea culpa: Secondhand smoke and the politics of science, The Skeptic's Dictionary newsletter
↑
↑ Recycling paper pollutes more than making new paper, De-Fact-O
↑ Bullshit!, Waste360
↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57r5xEsvftM&t=11m29s
↑ http://www.consumerfreedom.com/about/
↑ http://www.debate.org/peta/
↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inFtOMx8nDU

Categories:

begley newsweek: (note that he is not "ripped apart" and she does not compare him to holocaust denier

Penn & Teller, and Believing in Dumb Things

Jun 27, 2008 1:37 PM EDT

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/lab-notes/2008/06/27/penn-amp-teller-and-believing-in-dumb-things.html

There is definitely something to be said for holding a science meeting in Las Vegas, especially when the subject of the meeting is skepticism about pseudoscience and the paranormal. When I took a break from listening to the scholarly papers on people’s gullibility and the psychological basis for the belief in weird stuff, I strolled through the ubiquitous casinos and saw, yup, people believe in things (like the possibility of beating the house) for which there is little to no basis in reality.

The (almost) annual "Amazing Meeting" is put on by the James Randi Educational Foundation. Randi, of course, is the magician who has put his expertise in and knowledge about illusion and fooling people to good use in debunking claims of the paranormal, most famously showing that Uri Geller was not bending spoons with his thoughts:

In that fine tradition, psychology researcher Richard Wiseman has, and at the conference last weekend persuaded the magician Teller (the silent half of Penn & Teller) to explain how “mentalists” (appear to) bend spoons.

My small contribution was a talk arguing that skeptics should not count on the press to enlist in their debunking crusade, something that also extends to the fight between evolution and creationism. So as not to bore you with the whole 30-minute speech, let me just say that my basic argument was that people believe weird things because of emotion, something no number of magazine and newspaper stories on the solidity of the science behind evolution (or the lack of evidence for homeopathy, psychic phenomena et al, as I also discussed in a column last year), is going to change. Add to that the public’s antipathy toward the press, and there’s no way the press can help the skeptics’ cause.

I’ll write more about the meeting eventually, but for now I can’t get something out of my mind. Penn and Teller did a q&a with the audience the day before Teller alone spilled the beans on spoon bending, and one question yielded a surprising answer. Someone asked Penn whether he still believed that man-made climate change is bunk, as he has said more than once. Penn's basic answer was: I loathe everything about Al Gore, so since Gore has been crusading against climate change it must be garbage.

Now, Penn & Teller’s terrific “Bull****,”now beginning its sixth season on Showtime, has debunked psychics such as John Edward, feng shui, acupuncture and other forms of pseudoscience and the paranormal. But here was Penn, a great friend to the skeptic community, basically saying, don’t bother me with scientific evidence, I’m going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore. (Both Penn and Teller are well-known libertarians and supporters of the libertarian Cato Institute, which has been one of the leaders in spreading doubt about global warming.) Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things.