Who pissod off Penn?

Gregoire said:
I am reading this thread, trying to understand what people are so upset about.

My take of what Penn said at TAM is different from what is being stated here. Penn was asked a question and said he didn't know the answer. He said part of his problem in making a sober assessment of this issue is his emotional reaction he has to Al Gore.

I took this as the type of admission one might give when answering a question from a friend. I see it analogous to someone asking, "Who do you think will win MLB AL East" and you answer, "I think the Red Sox will win, but that might just be because I don't like the Yankees." You answer the question your friend asks, but then qualify it by stating your bias.

Frankly, I think we as skeptics should emulate this approach. We are all keenly aware the many ways others can so easily misinterpret data without realizing it. It is refreshing to see someone of our own look honestly into his own heart in explaining his answer to a question.

Of course, you might argue, this approach is only practical when we are among friends. But clearly, in this case, that is the situation Penn considered himself to be in.
Click to expand...

I think this is the most reasonable interpretation I've seen yet (except for the baseball analogy, since it's obvious that the Red Sox will win the AL East.)
 
What I heard from Penn was a lot more of "I think Al Gore is a jerk/idiot/sanctimonious S.O.B" than "I don't know." Yes, he did say he didn't know much about the subject, but that he was inclined toward the nothing-to-see-here-move-along point of view because of his strong personal dislike for Al Gore. That is exactly the point of Ms. Begley's article. And quite frankly, his not referring to Begley by name and describing her as "one of the non-famous, non-groovy, non-scientist speakers" is childish and rude.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I trust the peer-review process. People who proclaim that climate scientists are part of a vast conspiracy which is subjugating scientific integrity to a political agenda sound an awful lot like ID creationists.
 
SkeptiKilt said:
What I heard from Penn was a lot more of "I think Al Gore is a jerk/idiot/sanctimonious S.O.B" than "I don't know." Yes, he did say he didn't know much about the subject, but that he was inclined toward the nothing-to-see-here-move-along point of view because of his strong personal dislike for Al Gore. That is exactly the point of Ms. Begley's article. And quite frankly, his not referring to Begley by name and describing her as "one of the non-famous, non-groovy, non-scientist speakers" is childish and rude.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I trust the peer-review process. People who proclaim that climate scientists are part of a vast conspiracy which is subjugating scientific integrity to a political agenda sound an awful lot like ID creationists.
Click to expand...
I think this sums up what I've been saying quite nicely.
 
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...
I think the sceptical response in that situation is to defer to those who are authorities in the subject. They say there AGW is real, and can explain it to you, including the physical basis. Read the IPCC reports.
 
In defense of the newsweek author, when Penn said he doubts what Al Gore says just on the basis of finding him annoying, that's beyond cynicism, it's downright douchebaggy.
 
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...
I think the sceptical response in that situation is to defer to those who are authorities in the subject. They say there AGW is real, and can explain it to you, including the physical basis. Read the IPCC reports.
 
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.
Click to expand...

It's nice to know that you have the time (or perhaps lack of a social life?) to investigate the validity of everything in the world. Did you ever stop to think that maybe Penn has other things to investigate? Or maybe he likes to go out and have dinner with friends, rather than pour through research journals about the climate?

His response makes perfect sense, in the article, as it did at the conference. He said the whole climate change feels like nonsense. Remember in the 70's, when we were going to be out of oil by the year 2000? At the time, that claim felt like nonsense to me, even though I had not read any journals, nor did I have access to any of the oil companies drilling data. Nor did I bother to investigate it, because I had other things to do at the time. And guess what? I was right.

skeptigirl said:
It's one reason why Libertarians vote Republican...
Click to expand...

Huh??? I'm sure you have evidence for this.
 
Wolfman said:
Do you have any evidence that Penn is aware of the Exxon information? To tell the truth, while I consider global warming to be a serious and real threat, I've never before heard the whole Exxon thing. Its rather hard to raise a point of which you are unaware; and unless you have evidence that Penn was actually aware of this, and deliberately avoided mentioning it, I don't see what the relevance of your remark is.

Besides which, I very much doubt that Penn's intent was to engage in a lengthy discussion.

He personally is skeptical of global warming. There are lots of things that I am personally skeptical of, also. Because he is skeptical of it, he does not invest huge amounts of time in researching it -- just as I tend not to put a whole lot of time into researching things that I am skeptical of. It is human nature to focus our time/energy on those things we see as important and relevant to us as individuals.

All the man said was that he cannot offer any real opinion or decision one way or the other -- that he does not understand it well enough to offer an opinion. And I can respect that a whole hell of a lot more than people who go about spouting off opinions and conclusions about issues of which they actually understand little or nothing.

Criticize him for lack of interest, or lack of willingness to try to understand the situation better, if you want. But don't criticize the man for simply being honest that he can't offer an opinion on a subject he doesn't understand. And don't criticize him for not bringing up issues that you can't even demonstrate he's aware of.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Gregoire said:
I took this as the type of admission one might give when answering a question from a friend. I see it analogous to someone asking, "Who do you think will win MLB AL East" and you answer, "I think the Red Sox will win, but that might just be because I don't like the Yankees." You answer the question your friend asks, but then qualify it by stating your bias.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

It would be the same as if someone came up to me and said "James Cramer (the investment "guru") said that we should all buy stock in orange growers because of X". I would say, "I don't know anything about companies who grow oranges. I haven't looked into it. However, I do know that James Cramer is an idiot, therefore, I suspect his advice is nonsense." It is perfectly ok to judge the person, and their past record of idiotic statements, when one doesn't have time to investigate the actual evidence. We do it every day.
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
It would be the same as if someone came up to me and said "James Cramer (the investment "guru") said that we should all buy stock in orange growers because of X". I would say, "I don't know anything about companies who grow oranges. I haven't looked into it. However, I do know that James Cramer is an idiot, therefore, I suspect his advice is nonsense." It is perfectly ok to judge the person, and their past record of idiotic statements, when one doesn't have time to investigate the actual evidence. We do it every day.
Click to expand...

True enough. However, Al Gore is not pulling this information from his nether regions like Cramer does, he's reporting on a vast body of peer-reviewed science. Perhaps a good follow-up question for Penn would be "Do you believe that Al Gore once claimed to have 'invented the internet'?" If he says yes, then you know that his opinion of Al Gore is based on that substance for which his TV show is named, and can decide how seriously to take his opinion.
 
SkeptiKilt said:
True enough. However, Al Gore is not pulling this information from his nether regions like Cramer does, he's reporting on a vast body of peer-reviewed science. Perhaps a good follow-up question for Penn would be "Do you believe that Al Gore once claimed to have 'invented the internet'?" If he says yes, then you know that his opinion of Al Gore is based on that substance for which his TV show is named, and can decide how seriously to take his opinion.
Click to expand...

That seems like a silly follow up question.
 
Isn't this pretty much the definition of Ad Hominem? Attacking the arguer, not the argument?
 
GreyICE said:
Isn't this pretty much the definition of Ad Hominem? Attacking the arguer, not the argument?
Click to expand...
I took my argument to a different thread to discuss it in more general terms because there were a couple possible alternative explanations here. I still have my opinion about what affects Penn's lack of attention to the GW science and I don't buy the excuse he stated myself.

But SkeptiKilt pointed out that Penn's rationale for questioning global warming was exactly an ad hom and not a skeptical position. That is evidence of a lack of at least one skeptical principle in this case.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
....


Huh??? I'm sure you have evidence for this.
Click to expand...
Of course I do.

The Libertarian Vote; by David Boaz and David Kirby; David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute. David Kirby is executive director of America's Future Foundation. They are coauthors of a new Cato Institute study, "The Libertarian Vote."; Added to cato.org on October 23, 2006
Our data show that libertarians have generally voted Republican—66 percent for Ronald Reagan in 1980, 74 percent for George H. W. Bush in 1988, and 72 percent for George W. Bush in 2000. But they are not diehard Republicans. John Anderson and Libertarian Party candidate Ed Clark got 17 percent of the libertarian vote in 1980, and Ross Perot took 33 percent of the libertarians in 1992.

But for those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent, while the libertarian vote for the Democratic nominee almost doubled. It's not hard to imagine why. Libertarians didn't like Bush's record on excessive federal spending, expansion of entitlements, the federal marriage amendment, government spying, and the war in Iraq. Kerry didn't offer libertarians much except that he was not Bush, but he still narrowed the Republican majority among libertarians from 52 points to 21 points.

We can observe the same libertarian swing in 2004 congressional races. In House races, the libertarian vote for Republican candidates dropped from 73 percent in 2000 to 53 percent in 2004, while the libertarian vote for the Democratic candidates increased from 23 to 44 percent. Senate results were almost identical.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine) Even after Bush's incompetence came to light he still got 59% of the Libertarian vote.
 
Last edited:
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
It's nice to know that you have the time (or perhaps lack of a social life?) to investigate the validity of everything in the world. Did you ever stop to think that maybe Penn has other things to investigate? Or maybe he likes to go out and have dinner with friends, rather than pour through research journals about the climate?

His response makes perfect sense, in the article, as it did at the conference. He said the whole climate change feels like nonsense. Remember in the 70's, when we were going to be out of oil by the year 2000? At the time, that claim felt like nonsense to me, even though I had not read any journals, nor did I have access to any of the oil companies drilling data. Nor did I bother to investigate it, because I had other things to do at the time. And guess what? I was right.
Click to expand...

The thing is he says specificaly that someone doing much the same thing for different political motives would be moraly suspect.

If you took the same stance about say HIV causing AIDS, or if the Holocaust happened.

The only difference seems to be that denying global warming is likely to get you a good job in the EPA given current ideological based hireing practices, not which is more broadly supported by science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom