Who pissod off Penn?

[bob_conklin]

You've been duped.

Whatever year it was in the 30's was the hottest year on record in North America. Which means next to nothing.

But the most dominant trend is in north america. This has to say something about the statistical significance of the trend.

 

[jimbob]

Redwood growth? Polar bear population? Anyone else like to chage the subject from measuring surface tempurature and relating it to the carbon cycle so that it would be inappropriate to be skeptical on the subject?

I looked at surface measurements and saw the trend[EDIT: in warming, nothing to do with post#161], however I do accept that economic growth could have had some effect due to development near measurement sites, so I decided on something that was far from most human local effects and was sensitive to temperature. Luckily for analysis, ice cover would seem to fit the bill quite well, certainly better than polar bear numbers.

[EDIT: This isn't cherry-picking data, as I didn't know what the result would be until I looked at it. I take it you have an issue with "data mining"? What is it as you seem to be using it as a pejorative term, I won't deny "datamining" but will deny "cherrypicking"]

The NASA GISS data map doesn't seem to agree that there is cooling asia, quite the opposite (unless I am colourblind and can't read a map)


MP4 here
from this page

 

[jimbob]

What evidence would you need to convince you that global warming is real?

 

[bob_conklin]

I looked at surface measurements and saw the trend[EDIT: in warming, nothing to do with post#161], however I do accept that economic growth could have had some effect due to development near measurement sites, so I decided on something that was far from most human local effects and was sensitive to temperature. Luckily for analysis, ice cover would seem to fit the bill quite well, certainly better than polar bear numbers.

[EDIT: This isn't cherry-picking data, as I didn't know what the result would be until I looked at it. I take it you have an issue with "data mining"? What is it as you seem to be using it as a pejorative term, I won't deny "datamining" but will deny "cherrypicking"]

The NASA GISS data map doesn't seem to agree that there is cooling asia, quite the opposite (unless I am colourblind and can't read a map)


MP4 here
from this page

1880-1884 anomaly vs 1951-1980 done in watercolor? These are not the driods that you are looking for.

 

[bob_conklin]

What evidence would you need to convince you that global warming is real?

If land mass was going away, I would consider it a problem. Many small island countries would have a legitimate legal claim against CO2 producers. This is not the case.

** Oops. Land area.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You've been duped.

Whatever year it was in the 30's was the hottest year on record in North America. Which means next to nothing.

Were you "duped" when you believed the headline that NOW was the HOTTEST year on record?

 

[CFLarsen]

If land mass was going away, I would consider it a problem. Many small island countries would have a legitimate legal claim against CO2 producers. This is not the case.

** Oops. Land area.

You are wrong.

You want more evidence? I got plenty of that. I'm famous for it.

 

[varwoche]

Were you "duped" when you believed the headline that NOW was the HOTTEST year on record?

I never saw a headline about NOW, other than as part of the nightly weather report. So no, I didn't have the opportunity to be duped by the headline you mention.

 

[jimbob]

Bob, you say you DON'T KNOW, but you seem to have made up your mind:

There seems to be way too many skeptics that can't be skeptical on this topic. I poured through the IPCC data myself. The skeptical comminity is way too biased on this point.

It seems very church like to me. All of the red flags are there. This is a religion.

 

[Roboramma]

If land mass was going away, I would consider it a problem. Many small island countries would have a legitimate legal claim against CO2 producers. This is not the case.

** Oops. Land area.

He didn't ask what would be a problem or what would give a legitimate legal claim. He asked what would be evidence.

And if the only thing you can think of is islands being flooded by rising sea levels, well, that seems a little too late for me. It also seems to completely neglect the power of science. It's like not believing in the sun until you've melted from flying too close to it.

 

[varwoche]

Bob, you say you DON'T KNOW, but you seem to have made up your mind:

He doesn't just seem to have made up his mind. With absolute certitude, Bob states flat out that there is "no data whatsoever" supporting agw. Of course this might come as a surprise to the many expert scientists who have studied climate change and published their findings. If only they had followed Bob's prescription and taken a "simple physics class".

 

[a_unique_person]

The only constant on this planet is change.

Change always happens for a reason. That is why we have science, to understand things. That understanding is never perfect or complete, but we understand a lot more about our world now than we did just a century ago, or even 50 years ago. One of the things we understand a lot better now than we used to is climate change, and the reasons for it.

 

[Chaos]

Change always happens for a reason. That is why we have science, to understand things. That understanding is never perfect or complete, but we understand a lot more about our world now than we did just a century ago, or even 50 years ago. One of the things we understand a lot better now than we used to is climate change, and the reasons for it.

More to the point, change isn´t just god-(or whatever)given. If we notice change that is in some way harmful to us, we can try to figure out how to stop or reverse it. Unless, of course, the harebrained idiots who think stuff goes away if you disbelieve it hard enough manage to delay such efforts until it is too late.

 

[jimbob]

Thank you Chaos, I have been saying that the questions should be

1) Is the climate changing? (Yes the evidence is very strong that it is warming)
2) Is this going to have an adverse effect? (Yes, crops and population infrastructures can't move as quickly as the climates, especially if it with national borders)
3) Do we know what humanity can do to reduce this, even if it is "natural"? (We have some ideas, and the most obvious one is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses).

I think the evidence is also strong that this warming period isn't just due to natural variataion, but even if it were, so what?

 

[Cain]

Thanks to Conklin's post on the less-evil politics board, I revisited this thread to see this reply:

Fair enough, but don't you have to concede that GW is a terribly complex question, and that it may well be beyond the ability of laymen to know enough to have an intelligent opinion?

We are talking about Penn, professional skeptic, not ordinary laypeople. Has a "terribly complex question" prevented this particular glibertarian from blathering his views?

So you believe that the topic is easy enough for anyone to understand, as long as he keeps an open, (dare I say skeptical?) mind on the issue?

This is another silly attempt at reframing the issue. If you want to say the science behind global warming is insanely complex, then you should be more inclined to rely on the support of established authorities. This is something Penn is all too willing to do with respect to most science, presumably because it does not threaten his world-view; the instant it does threaten his world-view he becomes an agnostic. You're conflating two separate issues. You're saying agnosticism is defensible, which is rather different than saying Penn's agnosticism is defensible. It just sounds like he's taking a position in bad faith, which is supported by his personal attack on Gore. Michael Shermer is a little better. See his column from not long ago in Scientific American, where he lavishly praises Gore and admits he never took much of an interest in the issue.

There's only one basic question about the Holocaust: Did the Nazis murder millions of Jews? The "yes" answer is supported by all the evidence. It's not nearly as complicated as the GW question. For the Holocaust question to be as complex as GW, you'd have to ask questions like:

• Did it actually happen in the first place?
• Even if it did happen, how do we know the Nazis did it?
• If it did happen, was it bad?
• Is genocide of Jews a natural occurrence that happens periodically because of forces over which we have no control?

The answers to those questions are easy; the proof is overwhelming, the case for alternative theories is scanty at best, and there has been no significant change in our conclusions over the past half-century.

Unfortunately, none of that is true about GW. Not every scientist who is skeptical about GW or its causes is a corrupt Exxon lackey, and not everyone with irrefutable proof of GW come to the table without biases or with his science straight (see the unfortunate "hockey stick" study). I think it's perfectly fair for a layman to say about GW, "I don't know, and I don't understand enough about the scientific discussion to have an intelligent opinion," while being satisfied with history's final judgment about the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is not an issue most people today will question. I'm sure many members here are better informed on issues of quantum mechanics, but if asked their certainty on a quantum world vs. the historical event of the Holocaust taking place, I don't think it's difficult to guess which way they would bet. A person who is skeptical the Holocaust ever took place is likely to be charged with anti-Semitism; who else in the face of overwhelming evidence could believe anything that deviates so far from the standard, accepted account? That person, we reason, must have an ax to grind, and it's difficult to imagine she is apolitical, even though, logically, such denunciations basically fall under the personal attack fallacy umbrella. We can be rather confident Penn is not apolitical; he approaches this topic with a lot of baggage, and when he does his hyper-fake, melodramatic "I...just... don't... know" bit the appropriate answer is "read a ****ing book." You have an impressive Rolodex, so call someone who has a clue.

 

[Michelle Lyon]

"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."

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labn...penn-teller-and-believing-in-dumb-things.aspx

The problem here was that the author of this blog heard Penn's first sentence about Al Gore, jumped off in a rampage in her head, and stopped listening.

Not listening to someone's entire statement before forming opinions on the matter, isn't very skeptic-like. She might have at least spoke with Penn afterwards and made sure she understood him correctly.

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.

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.

They were probably aware of it AND honest about it. Penn expressed a pretty passive role in a few different political issues we asked him about. I dislike greatly, for example, that he (as I heard him) discourages people from voting.

When someone takes a passive stance on any topic, and does not collect any information, then yes, they won't know. But at least Penn has the cohones to say he doesn't know. He also had the cohones to say that the reason he's passive regarding GW is because of Al Gore's movie hype. I can't really blame him there.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They were probably aware of it AND honest about it. Penn expressed a pretty passive role in a few different political issues we asked him about. I dislike greatly, for example, that he (as I heard him) discourages people from voting.

I happen to agree with him. See my sig.

 

[Chaos]

I happen to agree with him. See my sig.

From your sig:

"We have to either start voting for loony third party candidates or not voting at all. If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil" - Penn Jillette


The problem with that reasoning for not voting is, why are third party candidates all such loonies? Or rather, why not run a sane third party candidate? You should be able to scrounge up enough reasonably mentally sound folks to form a party; with a viable, sane third choice, there´d be no need to vote for the loonies.

Or, to rephrase Penn´s statement: If we keep voting for loony third part candidates, it´s going to keep getting more loony.

 

[Prometheus]

Unfortunately, it will probably never be possible to field a viable third party until we have a different election system in place, which we won't get because it's not in the interest of either party to let that happen.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

From your sig:

"We have to either start voting for loony third party candidates or not voting at all. If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil" - Penn Jillette


The problem with that reasoning for not voting is, why are third party candidates all such loonies? Or rather, why not run a sane third party candidate? You should be able to scrounge up enough reasonably mentally sound folks to form a party; with a viable, sane third choice, there´d be no need to vote for the loonies.

Or, to rephrase Penn´s statement: If we keep voting for loony third part candidates, it´s going to keep getting more loony.

Because the sane ones are sane enough to know they can't win.