Who pissod off Penn?

Hmmm, who has a Newsweek blog?

(NEVER MIND. Darat and roger posted before me.)
 
I've always respected someone who knows what he doesn't know, and is willing to state that fact, rather than someone who may know he doesn't know, but is constitutionally unable to admit not knowing.
With GW being a hot issue, and good information both for it and against it, it isn't unreasonable for anyone to withhold a statement on the subject.
I've noticed GW is more likely to be split miles apart by party lines.. conservatives vehemently against the very idea, with liberals wanting to do "something", yet unsure of what that "something" might be.
Penn's "I don't know" merely says he wants more information, as is quite reasonable.
Hard liners resent that, and want -their- viewpoint confirmed by everyone, all the time.
When someone with Gillete's status indicates there's a potential lack of verification, yea or no, these people get their knickers in a twist.
 
I Ratant said:
I've always respected someone who knows what he doesn't know, and is willing to state that fact, rather than someone who may know he doesn't know, but is constitutionally unable to admit not knowing.
With GW being a hot issue, and good information both for it and against it, it isn't unreasonable for anyone to withhold a statement on the subject.
I've noticed GW is more likely to be split miles apart by party lines.. conservatives vehemently against the very idea, with liberals wanting to do "something", yet unsure of what that "something" might be.
Penn's "I don't know" merely says he wants more information, as is quite reasonable.
Hard liners resent that, and want -their- viewpoint confirmed by everyone, all the time.
When someone with Gillete's status indicates there's a potential lack of verification, yea or no, these people get their knickers in a twist.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it is really terribly complicated, so to an extent you have to take the word of a significant majority of scientists engaged in such research.

He mentions holocaust denial, and I think that accedemicaly they are similar.

I don't know that 6,000,000 jews and several million other people where killed in death camps by the Nazi's. I have not done the research myself, gone to a sufficient number of primary sources to make an estimate of that for myself.

But I believe it in large part because a heavy majority of historians who have studied it believe it and there is certainly enough evidence to convince me that death camps existed.

The main difference seems to be political between the two groups of denialism that the anti global warming folks are much more popular in this country.
 
This from Sharon Begley needs addressing...
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.
Click to expand...
... because the news media exacerbates the problem when they create their false 50:50 controversy that sells news and when they act as a mouthpiece for their corporate owners and sponsors, but I digress.

Yes, saying you don't know is appropriate. Of course it is. But admitting in the same breath that your political bias has interfered with your investigation and assessment of the facts tells us something about that, "I don't know" position. Would these two have the same, "I don't know" position if they weren't anti-Democratic Party (Republican supporting ??) Libertarians? I doubt it.

And for skeptics to single out Al Gore's movie when Exxon has been involved in a million dollar propaganda effort to cloud the evidence with falsehoods also says something about Penn & Teller's honest appraisal of the evidence given their political bias. I'd say they are not aware of or they are not being honest about the influence their politics has on that, "I don't know" position.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
And for skeptics to single out Al Gore's movie when Exxon has been involved in a million dollar propaganda effort to cloud the evidence with falsehoods also says something about Penn & Teller's honest appraisal of the evidence given their political bias. I'd say they are not aware of or they are not being honest about the influence their politics has on that, "I don't know" position.
Click to expand...

Huh? Exxon?
 
CFLarsen said:
Huh? Exxon?
Click to expand...
CNN: Exxon linked to climate change pay out - Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.
While there is nothing wrong with funding new research, activists said the intent of the letter seemed to be to criticize the UN report in the eyes of the public, outside the normal review process for scientific work.....
Click to expand...
Of course Exxon denied that charge but it has since been substantiated.

Mother Jones: Some Like it Hot
News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.
Click to expand...

Democracy Now: Report: ExxonMobil Spends Millions Funding Global Warming Skeptics

From the Wall St Jnl: Exxon CEO Lee Raymond's Stance On Global Warming Causes a Stir
Last December, five oil companies joined with human-rights groups and agreed to examine any allegations of human-rights abuses in overseas operations and to push for investigations. Exxon Mobil's European rivals BP PLC and Royal Dutch/Shell Group have lent considerable support to the global-warming principles adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997.

Exxon Mobil officials say Mr. Raymond's comments reflect the company's views and not necessarily his own. But whatever he believes personally, Mr. Raymond has been one of the most outspoken executives in the nation against regulation to curtail global warming. Speaking out against the Kyoto initiatives in a 1997 speech in China, he said that costly regulations and restrictions are a bad idea, especially when "their need has yet to be proven, their total impact undefined, and when nations are not prepared to act in concert." He also questioned the science behind global warming and said the greenhouse effect comes in part from natural sources.

Mr. Raymond has since toned down his position, saying global-warming issues need to be addressed; he called for voluntary, rather than regulatory, action, technological solutions and more research. But he also reiterated that he believes the Kyoto pact is "unworkable, unfair and ineffective."

Exxon Mobil officials now say Mr. Raymond's statements on global warming have been largely misunderstood. While the company still believes the science is fuzzy, "uncertainty is no reason for inaction," says Frank Sprow, Exxon Mobil's vice president for safety, health and the environment.
Click to expand...

So keeping this OT, why is that not as important as any Gore movie if one is claiming a reason for not trusting the science?
 
skeptigirl said:
...
So keeping this OT, why is that not as important as any Gore movie if one is claiming a reason for not trusting the science?
Click to expand...
.
Penn is a magician, not a scientist.
He is perfectly free to wish to see definitive (to him) information on yea/nay re GW.
I am an engineer, and I see GW as real.
What to do about it, I have no idea, I leave that to the environmental scientists who can do the work on the situation, and find a way to alleviate it.
Dismissing his "I don't know" as a flat-out denial isn't correct or proper.
Few of us -do- know the reasons for why we see what we are seeing, and aren't qualified to make any judgements pro or con.
There's more informed agreement for GW than against, from what I've read in the science literture.
A journalism major with an agenda (The world is either her or against her) is not a source for anything at all, much less something as important as GW is.
 
Like I said, I Ratant, it wasn't the "I don't know" that I had the issue with.

And I don't know what context your comment about, "A journalism major with an agenda", is so I don't know what it means. My comment referring to Begley was to remind myself to address her comments later in a new thread.
 
Opinions are like... well you know.
But pinning someone down and beating up on him for a contrary opinion on an arcane and difficult question such as GW is more ideological than anything else.
Very few things are as black/white as GW/anti-GW is today, to many people.
Why the anti's are so anti astonishes me!
Many dismiss the idea because of Gore, and Gore only.
I can understand not paying all that much attention to a media darling's opinion on anything under the sun, but there is too much corroborative data -for- the theory of Global Warming to dismiss -all- of it due to one of the promoter's politics.
The real world doesn't pay any attention to opinions or beliefs, it chugs on regardless.
If the GW we observe is just another peak in a never-ending natural cycle, then combatting it is fruitless, but there's just too much data showing what we see today -overlays- and increases the natural events.
 
It's still disappointing when people who are skeptical about most things lack the curiosity to investigate the validity of the evidence spoon fed them by the political side they identify with. It's one reason why Libertarians vote Republican despite the fact the Republicans from the Reagan years until now only have an image of conservative economic policies. Their actions have been quite the opposite while the Clinton economic policies are dissed yet Clinton was a conservative in practice who balanced the budget.

The Exxon campaign of distorting the science of global warming was hardly a secret. The attack on science included the NASA scandal of suppressing global warming science, censoring the scientists, people from NASA resigned, there were Congressional hearings. This isn't just some controversial conclusions based on equally defensible positions. That part of the controversy would have been rather minor if it weren't for the political attacks on the science.
 
skeptigirl said:
This from Sharon Begley needs addressing...... because the news media exacerbates the problem when they create their false 50:50 controversy that sells news and when they act as a mouthpiece for their corporate owners and sponsors, but I digress.
Click to expand...

I don't think the media "creates" false 50:50 controversy. One side may be right and the other wrong, but it's up to you and me to figure out which argument makes more sense.

And I don't see anything wrong with corporate ownership and sponsorship. What's wrong with corporations? They are convenient organizations where people can cooperate to do things that individuals cannot do. It's a good way of organizing productive collaborative human activity.
 
We need a new thread on that, Puppy. It's OT. If you are interested, I'll contribute if you start one.
 
I've gotta' say that I side with Penn on this one. As much as I don't really agree with some of his comments, what he said at TAM was misrepresented...and he did a good job of defending himself in his response.
 
skeptigirl said:
CNN: Exxon linked to climate change pay out - Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.Of course Exxon denied that charge but it has since been substantiated.

Mother Jones: Some Like it Hot

Democracy Now: Report: ExxonMobil Spends Millions Funding Global Warming Skeptics

From the Wall St Jnl: Exxon CEO Lee Raymond's Stance On Global Warming Causes a Stir

So keeping this OT, why is that not as important as any Gore movie if one is claiming a reason for not trusting the science?
Click to expand...

Yes, let's keep this OT.

What the heck does Exxon have to do with what Penn thinks of global warming and Al Gore?

skeptigirl said:
It's still disappointing when people who are skeptical about most things lack the curiosity to investigate the validity of the evidence spoon fed them by the political side they identify with. It's one reason why Libertarians vote Republican despite the fact the Republicans from the Reagan years until now only have an image of conservative economic policies. Their actions have been quite the opposite while the Clinton economic policies are dissed yet Clinton was a conservative in practice who balanced the budget.

The Exxon campaign of distorting the science of global warming was hardly a secret. The attack on science included the NASA scandal of suppressing global warming science, censoring the scientists, people from NASA resigned, there were Congressional hearings. This isn't just some controversial conclusions based on equally defensible positions. That part of the controversy would have been rather minor if it weren't for the political attacks on the science.
Click to expand...

It sounds more like you want to talk about why you are pissed off at Exxon and the Republicans.
 
What about my comment, WM, that bringing up Gore while ignoring Exxon is evidence that this is more than simply not knowing, it is selectively ignoring the inconvenient facts, and I don't mean the science part, I mean the attack on the science part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom