Saturday, October 27, 2012

Pen and Teller on global warming b.s.

Penn and Teller show what real skepticism is all about.

The language is a little rough, but hey, the truth isn't pretty.

(N.B.: Penn is wrong at 26:08, but nobody's perfect)


  1. Right - you should always depend on what comedians say about global warming, not climate scientists.

    Just like you should always depend on Iftikhar Adil for brain surgery, not Michael Egnor.

  2. Well, actually it was all bullshit right up to 26 minutes, after which Penn almost made some sense.

    Besides the fact that the Earth is getting warmer and humans are responsible for almost all the increase in atmospheric CO2, the cost of energy in developing countries will be higher if the developed countries continue to be profligate users of fossil fuels.

    Reducing your energy consumption makes sense, just by saving money.

  3. Some of the points they make are valid with regards to the cash grab and shoddy science, but I cannot stand their style ...and I just don't find them all that funny either.
    I am glad to see them tackle it, but the general shift from AGW to 'climate change' is already becoming trendy.
    Science has once again discovered water is wet and that up is the opposite of down. Next month: The WHEEL reinvented.

    Penn and Teller are guessed it... CASHING IN.

    1. CrusadeRex,

      A bit rich, coming from a creationist. Not climate change... Global warming... The Earth is still warming...

  4. For Vermont and western Massachusetts Irene was a “once every 100 year” storm, now a year later we’re due for another. Welcome to the new normal. Global warming has already cost billions of dollars and it’s only going to get worse.

    The climate is shifting faster than the models of only a few years ago predicted, and the possibility of positive feed-back causing the warming to accelerate is very real. The damage to the environment and amount of human suffering caused by global warming has the potential to surpass all the tragedies of the past. Hitler and Stalin could look like little bumps in the road of human suffering compared to the mountain of suffering we are headed for. We are screwed, and its asshole tools like Egnor who are screwing us.

    Penn is from my town, and we do tend to swear more than the average American.


    1. You don't need to use Hitler and Stalin for comparison.

      Compare the potential death toll from AGW to the real death toll from your crap apocalyptic science-- DDT hysteria and population control mania-- which have killed a couple hundred million innocents.

      AGW is a piker compared to you.

    2. Michael,

      No. The ban on DDT was for its use in agriculture. It wasn't banned as a malaria control in interior treatment of walls. It being banned in America was partly due to pressure from large processed food manufacturers (as documented in 'Silent Spring 50') who were worried that if DDT residues were found in their products, that they'd be sued, regardless of whether it had any health hazard or not. Much better (for them) to ban it, even if it made their inputs more expensive, because all their competitors would be in the same position.

      The property that made DDT so useful for malaria (its longevity) made in dangerous in general agricultural use.

      The jury is still out on overpopulation. Currently the global population is 7 billion. If we are lucky, it will stabilize at 9 billion in 2050. Which means we need at least 25% more food, energy and fresh water.

      Most of the arable land is already being used. The oceans' fisheries already supplies 1 billion people with their protein intake, and are being overfished into collapse. 1.5 billion people currently don't have any electricity (the current energy production is 16 terawatts, 2000 Watts per person, and it's extremely unequally distributed) so we need to increase not decrease energy supplies. Oil accounts for about a quarter of energy - with 90 million barrels per day - so just on a business as usual plan, we need to be finding dozens of major new oil fields every year (we aren't). Aquifers in many parts of the world are in collapse, and it takes thousands of years to replenish. China already has banned use of aquifers in Northern China in agriculture because it needs the water for its burgeoning cities (as a side note, it wants to buy farms in Australia - creating nationalistic outrage in Australia- but understandable, because China is very concerned about food and energy security).

      There MIGHT be an unexpected future technological fix. Or perhaps not. It's a huge bet.

      And developing countries don't have large reserves of fossil fuels generally. Any fossil fuels they need to buy they have to buy on world markets. The prices of which will increase if developed countries continue their fossil fuel addiction.

      We really need to be smarter about the way we use energy. Cutting down on its use will save money, and done sensibly, won't impact seriously on our standard of living.

    3. @bach:

      Many funding agencies made it mandatory that poor countries eschew the use of DDT and other pesticides in order to recieve aid. There was and is enormous pressure not to use DDT, even for indoor spraying. Your assertion that DDT is "dangerous" is bullshit. Junk science. Environmentalist groups are still trying to ban it. Scum.

      Regarding population control, you say:

      "The jury is still out on overpopulation."

      But the jury is in on population control hysterics like you.

      You have killed well over a hundred million innocents with your crap "science". If you are going to do any explaining, explain your justification for China's One Child policy, India's sterilization program, Peru's sterilization program, all of which were the direct result of population cranks like you.

    4. Michael,

      I don't have to justify decisions that sovereign countries make about their internal decisions affecting their populations only. They're going to continue doing what they want to do, regardless of what I think or do.

      Developing countries, such as Sri Lanka, continued to use DDT in large amounts in agriculture after ceasing internal spraying of houses. DDT is banned in agriculture because it's persistent in the environment. It's not banned in malaria control.

      I'm not a 'hysteric'. You're thinking about yourself. Noting the coming problems which will need to be solved isn't hysteria. It's quite reasonable.

    5. Many funding agencies made it mandatory that poor countries eschew the use of DDT and other pesticides in order to recieve aid.

      Still pounding that discredited drum? Don't you ever tire of lying?

    6. The sheer malice of the environmental lobby in preventing poor countries from using DDT is now a matter of public record.

      The public is beginning to understand.

    7. Michael,

      OK, cite references for your assertion that poor countries have been prevented from using DDT in malaria control. After your continued efforts to justify your assertion that no Black Democrat has been elected in a White majority electorate, I don't think that you can.

      You're a habitual liar.

    8. "Silent Spring at 50" has the references. CH 8 if my memory serves. I'm not your research assistant.

    9. Michael,

      No. 'Silent Spring 50' chapter 8 doesn't have the references. Whenever there's a laudatory comment about the benefits of DDT, there's copious references. Whenever there's a comment about environmental activists calling for the banning of DDT in malaria, or developed countries putting pressure on malarial countries ceasing the use of DDT, there are no references.

      The EPA banning DDT for widespread agricultural use in 1972 had the effect of making DDT more expensive (although it's a simple chemical requiring only a two step manufacturing process).

      But WHO never banned DDT, although they wanted other insecticides and biological control mechanisms.

      You're a liar.

  5. Of course, when it comes to atheism, their skepticism is no where to be found.

    1. Well, like all atheists, they've looked at the evidence for the existence of god(s) and found it wanting. Skepticism is questioning the existence of commonly accepted entities.

  6. Actually Penn is correct at 14:18 AND at 26:08.

    Go check out their other episodes about the bible and the vatican. And mother theresa. Eye-opening...

  7. The increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution is app. 100 ppm or .01 percent. Not 1 percent, just .01 percent. I challenge anyone to prove that such a small increase is affecting ANYTHING.