Bill Maher's Zoo - Hilarity Ensues

shadron

Philosopher
shadron
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
5,918
A debate over Global Warming starts out pretty well; Kingston's on the con, seconded by Cain, with Maher and Campbell seconded by Hughley. They're getting into it pretty good when the topic suddenly switches to evolution, and Cain and Hughley suddenly... ah, but you'll see. Most amusing. I have respect for Campbell; she knows her points and pushes hard. Kingston smiles throughout, but it seems to get a bit strained later on. Good stuff, with not too much of Maher playing to the audience, as he likes so much to do.

 
shadron said:
A debate over Global Warming starts out pretty well; Kingston's on the con, seconded by Cain, with Maher and Campbell seconded by Hughley. They're getting into it pretty good when the topic suddenly switches to evolution, and Cain and Hughley suddenly... ah, but you'll see. Most amusing. I have respect for Campbell; she knows her points and pushes hard. Kingston smiles throughout, but it seems to get a bit strained later on. Good stuff, with not too much of Maher playing to the audience, as he likes so much to do.

Click to expand...

If a legislator can't understand evolution (and in all fairness, that guy is trying REALLY hard not to understand it), then what hope does he have with subtle economic issues?

The Theory of Evolution is one of the most elegant, easily explained concepts in all of science. If that one gets by you...
 
If you are a fundy goddy or you get elected by fundie goddies and don't have the testes to stand up for what's correct then you pretend to (or really) let it get by you. Besides, those types all know a theory is just a guess.
 
The irony, "The science shouldn't be debatable". "I didn't come from monkeys." :rolleyes:

It's hard to listen to people insist on their ignorance.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The irony, "The science shouldn't be debatable". "I didn't come from monkeys." :rolleyes:

It's hard to listen to people insist on their ignorance.
Click to expand...
Or the other irony "Science isn't political, it's the truth" "I don't believe in evolution." Or the other one "Science isn't settled on climate" "I'm sorry, I believe in evolution."

Makes me want to ask "If man was made from clay, why is there still clay?"
 
I was saddened by D.L Hughley when he turned around and said he didn't believe in evolution either though. Kingston saying we should just put the science on the table regarding global warming was hilarious.
One thing I have never gotten about the argument that AGW is all about politics though: The woman on the panel was a Canadian, not a U.S. Dem or Rep. The science regarding global warming is being done all over the world, in countries with vastly different political spectrums than the United States. Anyone that says that the science is being manipulated by U.S. lib vs con politics is using a very weak lie indeed.
 

The video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by HBO
 
Sounds fascinating. Appears to be unviewable though due to copyright. Any alternate links?
 
I think the problem is this:
Globe getting warmer = check
Globe getting warmer in part because of human activity = reasonable
Globe getting warmer solely because of humans = unlikely

Everyone is getting bogged down on the last two, and ignoring the first one.
 
Dorian Gray said:
I think the problem is this:
Globe getting warmer = check
Globe getting warmer in part because of human activity = reasonable
Globe getting warmer solely because of humans = unlikely

Everyone is getting bogged down on the last two, and ignoring the first one.
Click to expand...
I agree with all you say except your claim, "everyone is". Some of us are focused on the campaign to discredit valid science, and most climate scientists I've read rarely claim only human activity affects climate change. I think you are assuming a false equivalency here on both sides of the debate. Science is on one side and anti-science is on the other. Very few climate scientists are out to prove some political position.
 
Last edited:
This has never been more appropriate.

Someone told me
It's all happening at the zoo.
I do believe it,
I do believe it's true.

It's a light and tumble journey
From the East Side to the park;
Just a fine and fancy ramble
To the zoo.

But you can take the crosstown bus
If it's raining or it's cold,
And the animals will love it
If you do.
If you do.

Something tells me
It's all happening at the zoo.
I do believe it,
I do believe it's true.

The monkeys stand for honesty,
Giraffes are insincere,
And the elephants are kindly but
They're dumb.
Orangutans are skeptical
Of changes in their cages,
And the zookeeper is very fond of rum.

Zebras are reactionaries,
Antelopes are missionaries,
Pigeons plot in secrecy,
And hamsters turn on frequently.
What a gas! You gotta come and see
At the zoo.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I agree with all you say except your claim, "everyone is". Some of us are focused on the campaign to discredit valid science, and most climate scientists I've read rarely claim only human activity affects climate change. I think you are assuming a false equivalency here on both sides of the debate. Science is on one side and anti-science is on the other. Very few climate scientists are out to prove some political position.
Click to expand...
I didn't literally mean 'everyone'. I just meant you. :D

Did you just say I assumed a false equivalency, and then assume a false dichotomy (Science is on one side and anti-science is on the other.)? I hope I didn't misunderstand that somehow.

The way I see it, there's
1) Is global warming occurring?, and
2) If so, how much of it is being caused by humans, if any?

I think most people answer 1) with a yes. 2) is where the "debate" is raging right now. Not to say there aren't some who say no to 1).
 
Dorian Gray said:
I didn't literally mean 'everyone'. I just meant you. :D

Did you just say I assumed a false equivalency, and then assume a false dichotomy (Science is on one side and anti-science is on the other.)? I hope I didn't misunderstand that somehow.

The way I see it, there's
1) Is global warming occurring?, and
2) If so, how much of it is being caused by humans, if any?

I think most people answer 1) with a yes. 2) is where the "debate" is raging right now. Not to say there aren't some who say no to 1).
Click to expand...
Is there a third side? Pro-science, anti-science and neutral science? :p

It is my pre-established position that climate change deniers have been unduly influenced by the anti-global warming science campaign that has its roots in an Exxon funded marketing scheme. I'm willing to change my mind, but the evidence would have to be overwhelming and I don't see that happening.

There's a little room (but not a lot) to debate how much of the warming is due to the industrial revolution, but there's no room to dismiss the influence altogether. I think if you took away the Exxon campaign to create false doubt about the science, including the political attack to make the science all about Al Gore, no one would be having this debate. We'd be arguing about whether or not anyone should sacrifice today for concerns about tomorrow, but I don't think people would be arguing about the science.


But back to your false equivalency, "Everyone is getting bogged down on the last two, and ignoring the first one." Who are these scientific evidence based folks who are claiming, "Globe getting warmer solely because of humans"? The issue is we need to address the warming regardless of the cause. And we certainly can't address it by wishing nature would change.
 
slingblade said:
Yeah? Well if aliens come from space, why is there still space? Huh? HUH? :D
Click to expand...

But...but...sputter...gasp...

Damn, your unanswerable reasoning and strength of conviction has rendered me senseless. I bow to your superiority!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom