Pharyngula

Posted by: Ouchimoo | August 30, 2009 12:31 PM

Su'weeet!

This is really unrelated but it's great analysis of science reporting:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/#comic

Posted by: me | August 30, 2009 12:38 PM

Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem. *bonk*

Posted by: dutchdoc | August 30, 2009 12:44 PM

Hm... I thought libertarians were pesonae non gratae here... ;-)
I guess these two arch-libertarians are good for something after all.

Posted by: PixelFish | August 30, 2009 12:51 PM

Yay! Penn and Teller!

(Today, coincidentally, is my bf's birthday, and he's celebrating by watching Penn and Teller in Vegas. It feels like a theme today!)

Ric: Yeah, they can be a bit one-sided in their approach. Sometimes they take the most floppy view of a particular subject and show that one. Their video on yoga, for example, had Penn referring to it as stretching over shots of people claiming that it would "balance your life". Lots of yoga proponents know that yoga is great isometric exercise but that isn't the Woo Side that attracts Penn and Teller, and to be fair, it's not the side that attracts a lot of people. I think yoga is fine, but it's fair to be realistic about it and to not lead people astray with promises of "cosmic change."

The climate change episode on the other hand, I haven't seen, so I can't speak to what tactics they took. Sometimes they seem to take an ornery bent just to be all "Look, we're fair, we criticise both sides," and when they do that, I think it does their message a disservice, because they should be about "Bullshit" and not sides.

I just finished reading Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time, which is purportedly about some detective trying to solve the mystery of Richard III, but is actually a solid denunciation against popular bias in history and using hearsay and polit propaganda as evidence. They fight the fight against Tonypandy--the term in the book for popular notions run amok that nobody examines anymore. And that's what I think Penn and Teller are trying to do--but occasionally they do miss because of their own blind spots. (But maybe they aren't as blind as all that. Teller once said that they plan the final episode to be about Bullshit itself and the methods they use.)

Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 30, 2009 12:52 PM

Hm... I thought libertarians were pesonae non gratae here... ;-) I guess these two arch-libertarians are good for something after all.

Even stopped clocks, and all that.

Has Bill Donohue been alerted to this yet?! Poor Catholics. They haven't been able to torture a heathen in centuries, the poor, put-upon, persecuted darlings.

Posted by: Kris | August 30, 2009 1:03 PM

OT: I'm still watching and will add my two cents about this video later. But for any geologists/pharyngulites out there what do you think about "in situ leach uranium mining" a Canadian company is applying for permits to do this on the Northern Colorado Front Range. I'm trying to blow the national whistle on this but I want to have a solid scientific understanding of the real risks of aquifer contamination first. Read the details here http://www.tompainesghost.com/2009/08/uranium-mine-on-colorados-front-range.html

Posted by: Che | August 30, 2009 1:07 PM

That was pretty weak. I've seen much harsher and more detailed criticisms of the Catholic church before.

Posted by: Nemo | August 30, 2009 1:11 PM

They seemed to take it more seriously than usual. I think this was the first episode I've seen without any naked women in it.

Posted by: eddie | August 30, 2009 1:21 PM

Hey! Did they just say dubya granted the pope immunity from prosecution? Doesn't that make dubya accessory to child rape? If you can't get ad the head nazi, prosecute every underling until there's no-one left to stand in your way.

Posted by: Greg F. | August 30, 2009 1:28 PM

The Vatican's stance on the use of condoms is so deplorably ignorant and contradictory to what years of research and study tell us, the only thing that gives its statements any credence is the appeal to a supernatural punishing hammer.

When I wrote about Ratzinger's comments on condom use and abstinence in Africa, it took me all of 10 minutes to find reputable, peer reviewed studies that his claims were nonsense...

http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/03/19/the-pope-needs-a-fact-check/

Posted by: rrt | August 30, 2009 1:38 PM

PixelFish:

Unfortunately, I think in many cases they really are just biased, rather than bending over backwards to be "fair" or "ornery." I do like their aggressive, funny attacks on those things I happen to agree with them on, but they can be pretty sloppy even then, so--as with everything--don't forget to be a skeptic. Either way, I love their willingness to speak so frankly, and I think that usually they make good points even when they're wrong.

Dustin14: In this context that position is frequently labeled as a form of denialism. Correctly, in my my opinion. But yes, it's a detail worth noting.

As for this episode, I thought it was fine but...somehow disappointing. I wanted to see Donohue get his, and I thought Sabina took up too much time.

Posted by: Dan | August 30, 2009 1:47 PM

I used to love the show. Then I watched the Global warming show. It was bad in the global warming show. They used a political scientist as an expert witness claiming it wasn't happening. They then started using the CATO institute as a reference for their side. They then proceeded to make fun of young environmentalists who were passing out environmental literature and didn't understand that dihydrogen monoxide was water. This was pretty much their critique of Global climate change. The evidence is there. They just refused to look or address it science. I stopped watching their show after that.

Posted by: ed | August 30, 2009 1:51 PM

LUVED IT!

Posted by: Jaroslav | August 30, 2009 1:55 PM

Please tell me that the silencing up to 10 years after becoming adult is not true. Please...

Posted by: Eric | August 30, 2009 1:59 PM

That was good. I'm glad they took on the Vatican, but there's so much more they could have discussed. They didn't really even get to the crusades, the inquisition, etc. I know that's old stuff, but it still gives a context to the church's actions.

As atheists, you'd think they'd mention PZ's cracker incident. At least it would demonstrate how idiotic the church's beliefs are, and how sensitive they are to criticism. They could have mentioned the report about child abuse in Ireland, and how the church attempted to downplay it (such as Bill Donahue's vile remarks). There's a lot of beliefs they could have made fun of. I suppose there's not really any way to fit that into a half hour show, though.

Posted by: Discombobulated | August 30, 2009 2:02 PM

Bill is foaming at the mouth:

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1664

Hmmm:

On Monday, we will have a mass mailing of DVD copies of this episode to bishops and religious leaders across the nation. This cannot go unanswered.

So, will Showtime/P&T be getting paid for the DVDs of these mailings? Or did Bill Donohue just admit in writing that he was about to willingly and knowingly commit copyright infringement?

Posted by: PixelFish | August 30, 2009 2:04 PM

RRT@22: I think you and I are inching around to the same point from slightly different directions. I agree--one should keep the sense of skepticism intact. And then, too, they are entertainers and often they entertain by hitting the low-hanging fruit, as per the yoga episode. I've sometimes seen segments of theirs that I felt could have been addressed in a more logical, less showy manner--the showmanship entertains, but doesn't always get past the second layer of "Yes, but."

All in all, I think they are at their best when they are encouraging independent research and healthy skepticism. I care less about their libertarian biases when its delivered with "You don't have to take our word for it, go out and research it yourself." Because I do. (Check stuff out, I mean.)

Posted by: bobxxxx | August 30, 2009 2:13 PM

Lots of wealth there at the Vatican and I think I know why. I work with a young single Catholic woman who has to pay rent and feed two children with a very small income. She puts 10% of her weekly salary into the collection basket every Sunday. Multiply this sucker by one billion people and you got lots of cash coming in. The Catholic church is the biggest money making racket in human history.

Posted by: AdamK | August 30, 2009 2:17 PM

I suppose there's not really any way to fit that into a half hour show, though.

They could do a whole season on catholic bullshit and still only scratch the surface.

Posted by: Black Jack Shellac | August 30, 2009 2:21 PM

P&T pissed me off a couple of times with that show of theirs, the global warming denial episode was particularly stupid. This episode was okay, but mostly because of the Italian chick taking on the goddamn vatican in Rome. Their own criticisms are remarkably sophmoric for the most part, and consist of people making themselves look stupid for the other part.

Posted by: Sleeping | August 30, 2009 2:27 PM

Ah, those two... scpetics. :) No evidence for global warming. Recycling is bad for the environment. I know this, because some shmuck from Cato Institute told me so on Bullshit!

But yeah, I agree that Catholicism is idiocy. But it doesn't take a genius to know that.

Posted by: NickG | August 30, 2009 2:31 PM

Absolutely fucking awesome!

Nick

Posted by: Joseph Nobles | August 30, 2009 2:33 PM

The Bullshit! show was focused on the carbon credit market more than global warming itself. In fact, I believe Penn had a short piece at the end where he said he didn't know about global warming and that it could very well be happening due to human action. It was just the carbon credit market they were calling bullshit on.

Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | August 30, 2009 2:38 PM

A note on that point about Bush giving Joey Rats immunity:

The Constitution says "...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

A reprieve is a stay of execution; a pardon is a release from punishment: both of these are for crimes the person has been convicted of.

The President has no power to grant immunity from prosecution.

They pulled a stunt like this when Ford pardoned Nixon. There were no convictions, so Nixon really got nothing. He could still be tried in absentia and convicted of treason, which would look good in (future) history books.

Under the RICO statutes the US can take the pope into custody, along with every single member of the international criminal conspiracy that supplies victims to child molesters and protects the molesters from prosecution.

Posted by: bobisimo | August 30, 2009 2:42 PM

To those folks saying you stopped watching the show and/or lost respect for them because of a specific episode, you can't take P&T that seriously. If you read interviews with the duo, they've commented that their episodes aren't always fair or perfect.

In fact, at Wikipedia, we have the comment that "During an interview on the January 31, 2007 episode of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, Teller claimed that the final episode of the show would be about "the bullshit of Bullshit!" and would detail all the criticisms that they themselves had of the show."

I think their goal is more in line with getting people thinking. And hey, if they deny global warming and it gets you out there doing the research to disagree, then I think they'd like that.

Posted by: @religionbites | August 30, 2009 2:47 PM

Not that I'm shocked at all to hear this kind of thing, but I'm still in awe that there hasn't been any real action taken against the Vatican. The fact that people still listen to what they have to say just blows my mind. They haven't done anything good for the world in the past 1000 years, when will Catholics figure that out?

If anything in this world is evil it's the Catholic Church and the Vatican for the crimes they have committed in the last 1,000 years.

The only way they will lose power is if people stop listening to them.

Catholics - grow a brain and do what's right - morally and ethically right.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 30, 2009 2:50 PM

P&T are not global warming denialists, they sum up their view at the end of the show. Essentially (if I remember correctly) they said there is strong evidence for global warming but that there is not enough evidence to suggest humans are the sole or even primary cause. - Dustin14

That is global warming denialism, which is the commercially-based or ideologically-based denial of the scientific consensus that global warming is real, anthropogenic, and an urgent problem. Exactly where the denial comes in is determined tactically - the point is to sow confusion and prevent action that would cut the profits of particular industries, or undermine the "free market" and "libertarian" bullshit of which Penn and Teller are proponents. If they said what you say they said, they are liars. It's market-worshipping atheists who give some credibility to Ratzi's lies reported in http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/pope_says_its_all_our_fault.php.

Posted by: AdamK | August 30, 2009 2:51 PM

Teller claimed that the final episode of the show would be about "the bullshit of Bullshit!" and would detail all the criticisms that they themselves had of the show."

When will they do an episode on the bullshit of libertarianism?

Posted by: llewelly | August 30, 2009 3:03 PM

When will they do an episode season on the bullshit of libertarianism?

Fixed it for you.

Posted by: arensb | August 30, 2009 3:10 PM

Shameless self-promotion:
Bill Donohue seems to have forgotten his long-standing aversion to Nazi comparisons.

Posted by: rrt | August 30, 2009 3:19 PM

Sorry, bobisimo, but I can't take them seriously when they make that defense, either. It's kind of a version of the "I was just kidding!" defense; any claim that doesn't prove true, they can retroactively claim they never really meant in the first place. That's oversimplifying, but you get my gist.

Besides, the defense doesn't match the nature of the show. If you're going to put on the mantle of skepticism and call something out as emphatically as they do, I think it's a fair expectation for you to be careful and thorough. They aren't always.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 3:23 PM

@3 Ric

It's hard to take them seriously after having seen their episode on global warming.

Me too. I stopped borrowing BS! from Netflix after that ep. Couldn't believe they didn't bother to interview ONE SCIENTIST on the issue--hello?--while they let their buddy from the Cato Institute tell giant whoppers unchallenged. (I mean, he dropped some really obvious fucking lies. It was sad.)

I had been previously annoyed by the second hand smoke ep because there's plenty of good evidence for the harm caused to non-smokers by second hand smoke (passive smoking), including risk of heart attack and upper respiratory problems.

They do expose the utter idiocy of many standard-bearers and cause-promoters. Passion and PR smarts don't necessarily mean inquisitive and deeply knowledgeable.

But you know what really got me? The disc's blooper real. Basically Penn Jillette screaming at and cussing out the camera crew & others. At one point he by carelessness knocks Teller on his head and after a moment casually asks if he's okay. Ugh. And the arrogance of statements like "this is so stupid I don't even have to explain why it's wrong" (speaking of ouija board). Go blow hard at somebody else, Penn--we're through.

Posted by: Dustin14 | August 30, 2009 3:29 PM

As I said I personally feel that humans are a strong contributor to global warming. I merely felt it was important to clarify the position being attacked so people did not waste there time walloping an opponent made of straw.

To use Escuerd example I think it's more a comparison between a young earth creationist and a proponent of theistic evolution. While I think both positions are wrong it's an important distinction to make, otherwise you risk wasting time attacking someone for believing the earth is 5000 years old when they already accept the age of the earth. What you should have been attacking is the foundation-less assumption of a higher power having influence over the evolutionary process.

Same thing here, painting P&T with the ambiguous wide brush of "global warming denialism" and you give the impression they hold views they do not, and effectively misrepresent their true opinion. You also waste time and effort talking about all the evidence that the earth is heating up (which they already admit) instead of addressing their main argument which is that we may be responsible, so basically attacking straw men which is all I was trying to prevent.

So excuse me for thinking that even people we disagree with should have there views and opinions represented in an honest fashion.

Posted by: druidbros | August 30, 2009 3:44 PM

If we are lucky ole Bill D will have a stoke or something.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 3:48 PM

@11 science pundit

re: louis ck

Thanks for the link-tip. That was pretty powerful. I was already a fan of his work, but I was impressed at how he assassinates the RCC in the span of four minutes.

I also found his 2min animation on his channel. Surreal, Freudian, and awesome. I shared with friends.

Posted by: Ric | August 30, 2009 3:51 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWt2Rir8OQk

That ought to shut up the P&T defenders. Penn says (minus the constant rephrasing), "Every bullshit detector I have... every Spidey-sense, every sniff, every whiff, smells like global warming (which they now call climate change, in case they wanna go the other way and say it's colder) it just reeks of fucking bullshit. And yet in good conscience we can't really come out and say it's bullshit, because there isn't enough information to refute it completely, and there is SOME [his emphasis] information to say that it might be real), but the idea is to go with your head, not your gut, and our heads can't say it's complete and total bullshit..."

QED.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 30, 2009 3:53 PM

I cannot get why the CC considers "natural birth control" morally acceptable. If sex is for procreation; and having sex while preventing procreation is wrong; and intent matters as much as the action ("lusting in your heart" is the moral equivalent of "lusting in the flesh"), then...
having sex, only for the pleasure when you know your are infertile, with the intent to avoid pregnancy, is just as morally wrong as having sex and using some artificial means of BC. Same game; worse odds.
The ban on condoms in Africa makes me puke. Not only does it pass AIDS onto women but also to their fetuses, so the babies are born with a death sentence. And, since we all know that wives are for fucking at the convenience of husbands (you can't rape your wife), the women cannot legally or morally refuse the sex acts that will spread the disease to them.

Posted by: Sleeping | August 30, 2009 4:01 PM

I suspect that the point of the show is to create an illusion that they are serious about debunking actual BS, and then they sneak in things like global warming and recycling and second hand smoking to make those things look like BS too.

Posted by: TomatoPaste | August 30, 2009 4:08 PM

Louis CK learns about the catholic church: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k

This is awesome :)

Posted by: Sleeping | August 30, 2009 4:13 PM

And by the way, it's no surprise that they prefer if second hand smoking or pollution or reckless use of Earth's limited resources were not harmful. Not only are they harmful, they affect everyone on the planet, which means there must be regulations put in place by a society's government - and that wouldn't help the world become more Libertarian, would it? You don't get to be selfish in all cases. Too bad!

Posted by: FishNChimps | August 30, 2009 4:19 PM

Ooooh that's going to hurt! I can't wait for this series to come to UK telly

Posted by: mcbender | August 30, 2009 4:29 PM

With regard to the second-hand smoke episode: I seem to remember Penn and Teller later coming out and apologising for that one, and admitting up-front that they'd been wrong. I find it admirable that they were willing to do that, but it'd be nice to see them do the same for a few of the others.

Overall, though, I like what they do. Most of the episodes are great.

Posted by: AdamK | August 30, 2009 4:37 PM

"Teller and I don't have a god in this fight."

Because there's nothing in this particular fight to challenge the Goddess Aynrand?

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 4:39 PM

AdamK,

You've intrigued me. About Shermer, do tell.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 30, 2009 4:46 PM

Penn & Teller are not being unbiased. They're atheists, so they bash the Catholic Church. They're libertarians, so they bash global warming. Since I'm the former (and a former Catholic) and not the latter, I can appreciate the RCC bashing and dislike the AGW bashing.

OT: Moveable Print (or whatever it's called) will not let me sign in.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 30, 2009 5:03 PM

"Leave science to the people who believe in it."

SNAP!

Posted by: Darren | August 30, 2009 5:15 PM

Ric (#3):

"It's hard to take them seriously after having seen their episode on global warming. They are global warming denialists."

So you dismiss everything they have to say because they said something you disagree with on an unrelated topic.

How rational of you.

Posted by: waldteufel | August 30, 2009 5:23 PM

Blustering Bill Donohue is absolutely apoplectic over this P&T episode. It's delightful.

But, he gives a link to a worthy at CBS (nancy.tellem@tvc.cbs.com) to whom you can e-mail a little note of support for P&T's critique of the Catholic Church and the evil that it promulgates.

Posted by: applescrapple | August 30, 2009 5:29 PM

The more P&T and others are seen on the internet the better chance we have of surviving as a species.
Wouldn't hold my breath though.

Posted by: ix | August 30, 2009 5:35 PM

AndrewT (#45):

The only question I had about this P&T show (actually the first time I've seen this show; I don't get Showtime) is where they got their cited figure from of a 20-50% gay rate among the clergy. Seems a bit high, even for a clique that specializes in keeping things in the closet.

Perhaps the same sources that ReligiousTolerance.org cites: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm

Posted by: Sanity Jane | August 30, 2009 5:35 PM

Levi wrote:

Everybody watch the astrology one too. The link to it shows up at the end of the video here. It's got Phil Plait *and* (someone else's) boobies, so what's not to love?

I'd prefer Phil Plait's boobies.

Posted by: Ric | August 30, 2009 5:38 PM

Darren@ 94:

Penn and Teller are obviously right about some things, like the fact that the Catholic Church is an evil organization. But when you say something that is incredibly stupid, and you try to get your message across in way that is dishonest, you lose my respect. Penn and Teller, over all, are idiots.

In fact, what they've shown themselves to be are two ideologues who are willing to ignore scientific consensus if it contradicts what they'd like to be true. Does that sound familiar to you? Let me replace just one of Penn's words, to point out the similarity:

""Every bullshit detector I have... every Spidey-sense, every sniff, every whiff, smells like [b]evolution[/b]... it just reeks of fucking bullshit. And yet in good conscience we can't really come out and say it's bullshit, because there isn't enough information to refute it completely, and there is SOME information to say that it might be real), but the idea is to go with your head, not your gut, and our heads can't say it's complete and total bullshit..."

If someone made a claim that we can't decide either way that evolution is true (while strongly suggesting that it's bullshit), ignoring scientific consensus to push their religious beliefs, you would lose respect for them. You'd be irrational if you didn't. Well, Penn and Teller did just that... ignored scientific consensus to push their political beliefs.

So I'll say it again: Penn and Teller pretty much suck.

Posted by: PixelFish | August 30, 2009 5:45 PM

I suggest that the church just wants more Catholics to be born. So they teach the rhythm method, precisely because it does not work. This allows people the illusion that they can control their own lives, even while they are actually under the control of the church.

Also when you get married young, and have a family young, and probably partly due to this lack of birth control, you find that everyone else in your life is seemingly entrenched with the church as well. It's a sunk cost of sorts. So having kids gives you more ties to other Catholics presumably.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | August 30, 2009 5:47 PM

SC, OM @ 97,

I've earned that right :-) I'm 56 and my still very beautiful girlfriend is a hot 55.

Posted by: Cathal | August 30, 2009 5:56 PM

OT, but does anyone what happened to Rationalwiki and why I can't get the webpage to open?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 5:58 PM

It's why I keep a dozen in my cellar.

Does Floyd know?

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 30, 2009 6:03 PM

So you dismiss everything they have to say because they said something you disagree with on an unrelated topic.

How rational of you.

How rational of you to put words in Ric's mouth.

Honestly there's not much intellectual merit in watching a comedy show on all these topics where we already agree with the hosts. Sure, Penn and Teller can be fun. But I really doubt that the educated denizens of Pharyngula actually learn very much from the show.

Now consider what bobismo said:

To those folks saying you stopped watching the show and/or lost respect for them because of a specific episode, you can't take P&T that seriously. If you read interviews with the duo, they've commented that their episodes aren't always fair or perfect.

If that's accurate, then really, why bother with them?

You know when you agree with them they aren't going to teach you anything and they might just reinforce your prejudices since they admit they aren't fair.

You know when you disagree with them that they aren't going to teach you anything because they don't try to correct themselves and they admit they aren't fair.

The only reason to bother is if it's fun for you. And that's an entirely subjective criterion, not something you can criticize Ric for disagreeing about.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | August 30, 2009 6:13 PM

So pathetically sad...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/29/kennedy.pope.letter/index.html

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 30, 2009 6:15 PM

Dear Brother Itchy,

Yes, Floyd knows I keep fine-aged vintage women in my cellar. But given what he keeps in his cellar he's in no position to cast aspersions.

Smoggy

Posted by: Darren | August 30, 2009 6:18 PM

#104

"If someone made a claim that we can't decide either way that evolution is true (while strongly suggesting that it's bullshit), ignoring scientific consensus to push their religious beliefs, you would lose respect for them."

Nice Strawman, Ric. At what point in the quote you cited did Penn say we can't decide if AGW is true? In fact, he seemed to say the complete opposite.

#114

"How rational of you to put words in Ric's mouth."

You have to be kidding. Surely.

"The only reason to bother is if it's fun for you. And that's an entirely subjective criterion, not something you can criticize Ric for disagreeing about."

Now who's putting words in Ric's mouth? He didn't say "I don't watch because I don't find it funny". He said he can't take them seriously (I presume about anything since he didn't qualify it) because of their position on one issue.

Posted by: Rich | August 30, 2009 6:23 PM

Once again: The catholic church says that HIV positive men in Africa should not use condoms when having sex with their non-HIV positive wives. Thus killing them.

Posted by: Eric | August 30, 2009 6:29 PM

Rrt, um, no, it's not like that at all. My point was that P&T are under the impression -- and convey the impression -- that everything, or even that many things the pope says are said infallibly, when in fact only one papal pronouncement since 1870 has been infallible. So, no, your analogy is completely off the mark, since my point didn't concern papal infallibility as such, but how it's been used.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 30, 2009 6:30 PM

Penn and Teller, however, seem to think that it concerns every thing the pope says.

Many or most lay Catholics think it applies to everything the Pope says. In practice, papal infallibility is the default mode. Lay Catholics often have to be taught in adulthood that it does not automatically apply, and then wonder why their nuns and priests never mentioned that.

Posted by: Wendy | August 30, 2009 6:41 PM

Thanks for posting this, PZ. Great episode. I felt like vomiting the entire way through! :P

This is the second time I've said this today, but if I weren't already an atheist, I would be after watching that video.

Posted by: Darren | August 30, 2009 6:44 PM

#127

"You exhibit very poor reading comprehension skills, Darren. Are you by any chance an AGW denialist?"

Is there a version of Godwins law that covers this?

Posted by: Troy | August 30, 2009 6:47 PM

Sadly, Penn & Teller destroyed their credibility with denying global worming.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 6:51 PM

Sadly, Penn & Teller destroyed their credibility with denying global worming.

sorry, but it's pretty common to get worms; happens in every country. Tapeworms and hookworms are especially common.

If this is the level of fact-checking P&T do, I too have lost faith in them.

:p

Posted by: Alverant | August 30, 2009 6:51 PM

The novelty song writer "The Great Lukeski" did a dialog about the Pope. He suggested he should have kept his original name because it sounded Mafia-style tough, someone who you wouldn't want to mess with, someone who would arrange those priests who molest children to start sleeping with the fishes. Then he goes into the internet meme about what would your Pope name be (some of his friends answered "Pope on a Rope" or "Pope-peil - NOW how much would you pray?")

Unfortunately, that's never to be. The RCC is running low on priests so to keep their good name, they're willing to ignore certain criminal acts. Strange thing is, child rape is core to christianity. The protoevangelion of James says the virgin mary was visible pregnant before being 13 winters old. If she wasn't yet 13 then she was 12. And if she was visibly pregnant at 12, she could have been knocked up at age 11. And who thinks that an 11 year old tweener can give informed consent to being a mother? She can't, ergo she was raped and that makes god a rapist.

Posted by: Ric | August 30, 2009 6:53 PM

Anyway you seem to be assuming that Ric didn't like their conclusion (evidenced by your stupid comment about "something you disagree with"), and so found them hard to take seriously. It's quite possible that Ric didn't like their inattention to scientific study (evidenced by his comment about them being "willing to ignore scientific consensus"). That's actually a good reason to stop taking someone seriously.

I just saw this, SGBM. Well said. Yes, that, combined with their willful dishonesty, is exactly why I don't take P&T seriously.

Posted by: Lynna | August 30, 2009 6:55 PM

46 is the new 26. Women in their forties and above are like the finest wines...aged to perfection, sensual, subtle, lingering on the palate, too fine to drink, too fine not to. It's why I keep a dozen in my cellar.

Smoggy, I'd like to formally request that I be let out of the cellar for a day or two. I need to ship homo-erotic building supplies to the Vatican. They kindly purchased all my left-over inventory.

Now that I'm out of the business, and have completed my community service by installing art deco lamps featuring naked, wingéd men in the local police station, I will be resident in the cellar most of the time. So, really, just a couple days out and about to clear up old business ...

P.S. Wonderful solution to the problem of my stalking Floyd -- having me move in means that I can keep in touch without having to park my van across from your domicile.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 6:56 PM

Yes, because that's what the discussion was about.

wtf WAS your point, exactly?

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 30, 2009 7:00 PM

Yes, because that's what the discussion was about.

Obviously for you that's what the discussion has been about. Someone criticized them for being intellectually lazy regarding AGW, and you flipped your shit.

Instead of just coming out and trying to argue your case against AGW, you tried to make the conversation be all about Ric and his lack of sufficient deference to Great Men.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 30, 2009 7:19 PM

Rrt, um, no, it's not like that at all. My point was that P&T are under the impression -- and convey the impression -- that everything, or even that many things the pope says are said infallibly, when in fact only one papal pronouncement since 1870 has been infallible.

And such a trivial matter it was that was pronounced infallibly, too. I mean, it wasn't that slavery should be abolished, or that the death penalty was morally wrong.

No, it was that Mary the mother of Jesus was assumed bodily into heaven.

WTF?

Incidentally, I just recently found out that there is a branch of Catholics that broke from the Roman Catholic Church specifically over the issue of papal infallibility.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church

And this is an amusingly ironic paragraph:

In the nineteenth century, before the 1870 definition, two catechisms in use in Ireland explicitly denied the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In answer to the question of whether the pope was infallible they suggested that such an idea was a Protestant invention made to discredit Roman Catholics. After the formal declaration of the Pope's Infallibility by Pius IX, this question and answer were quietly dropped in subsequent editions, with no explanation for the change.

(and this is the source cited for the paragraph -- fascinating in its implication of Orwellian modification of the "official" truth, dropping things down the memory hole...)

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 30, 2009 7:29 PM

Dearest Luscious-est Lynna @ 141,

Of course you may leave the cellar.

Leave whenever you like, for as long as you like, whatever the reason and whatever the season. As you go just slip on some of that exclusive electronic lingerie hanging on the closet and whenever I need to contact you you'll feel a sudden delicious vibrating sensation. As you haven't used this method of communication before take my advice and avoid public transport. At least initially you don't want to be squirming and buzzing in the midst of a train full of people.

Yours one sip at a time
Smoggy

PS Floyd won't be going anywhere for a day or two. He went to one of those 'pray the gay way' conferences and now he's completely shagged out. Says it's even better than prison sex.

PPS I might be off-line for a few days. Tell all the other honeys in the cellar to hit the town till I get back.

Posted by: Rich | August 30, 2009 7:33 PM

So. Anything that P&T say is automagically wrong because they might be wrong about global warming? Most of their stuff is right on the money. People, even people like P&T, have the right to be wrong sometimes.

Will the people who post here who are always right please raise their hands? Come on, infallibility is a prerequisite for posting here, isn't it? Or could I be wrong?

Posted by: Darren | August 30, 2009 7:41 PM

#145

That is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. I'm done with you.

Posted by: Ric | August 30, 2009 7:42 PM

Sigh. Go back and read my comments in this thread, please, before you misrepresent what I said.

Rich, it isn't that they were wrong once or that they made an honest mistake. It's that they displayed a lack of concern for science, indeed a willingness to misrepresent science to push their political agenda. They showed a dishonest streak. I've had my fill of that from the creationists and IDists, so hell yeah, it makes me lose respect for and generally not take Penn and Teller seriously.

Posted by: Darren | August 30, 2009 7:45 PM

#144

I'm not trying to argue any case against AGW. I have no problem accepting it. My problem is with people who flip their shit if someone expresses the slightest doubt about it, and then try to smear that person with the denier label.

#145

This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about.

Posted by: Wayward son | August 30, 2009 7:46 PM

Next someone will say that they don't take Jenny McCarthy seriously because of the singular issue that she happens to believe and advocate ridiculous crap about vaccines and autism.

Posted by: Ric | August 30, 2009 7:51 PM

Wayward son @158:

How ridiculous of you to even suggest that jenny McCarthy shouldn't be taken seriously because she misrepresents science in order to push her anti-autism agenda! You are clearly an irrational elitist who wants there to be a requirement that people posting here need to be infallible!

Posted by: Marc Abian | August 30, 2009 7:54 PM

Anything that P&T say is automagically wrong because they might be wrong about global warming?

No. Anything they say is suspect because their treatment of global warming shows that they are either grossly incompetent at evaluating what is or isn't bullshit or unwilling to let facts trump ideology.

Come on, infallibility is a prerequisite for posting here, isn't it?

No, but a willingness to not misrepresent what others say and an ability to understand pretty unambiguous points is appreciated.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 7:55 PM

Anything that P&T say is automagically wrong because they might be wrong about global warming?

"Fly, my winged strawmen, Fly!"

It's not THAT they were wrong in this one instance, it's WHY.

It does indeed tend to lower credibility when the arguments presented are poorly researched, and opposing viewpoints are mocked not with opposing evidence, but strawmen and red herrings.

that said, I personally think their show is primarily for entertainment purposes (like the Daily Show), and thus I don't tend to take it too seriously to begin with.

To contrast, the producers of "Expelled", OTOH, obviously meant that shit to be taken seriously, and deserve heaping piles of scorn.

Posted by: cehbeach | August 30, 2009 7:57 PM

Excellent episode, although I wished that they would have focused more on the RNC's involvement in Latin American countries governments to enforce their obscene policies. In particular El Salvador's 'Vagina Police' that drag women in for forced examinations to determine if a miscarriage was in fact an illegal abortion. It's also too bad that they don't use their laser like skepticism and apply it to their own goofy 'eff you, I got mine' Randroid Libertarianism.

Posted by: LuchinG | August 30, 2009 8:00 PM

I'm fordwarding this to any catholic I know.

Posted by: Darren | August 30, 2009 8:08 PM

#167

I was more concerned with your dismissal of Penn based upon him being a denier, which I don't think is a fair label to apply to him. I'm sure you can agree that if all deniers were more like Penn (begrudgingly accepting of AGW), the world may be better off.

"Note that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could read for comprehension, because the inability to do that is another explanation."

Comments like these make you seem aloof and petty and add nothing to the discussion.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 30, 2009 8:12 PM

Interestingly, I never heard anything at all about it from any Catholic authority I interacted with. It was only other lay Catholics, and non-Catholics, who mentioned it.

I think this is deliberate. It's hard to believe that the clergy are unaware of how the parishioners think about infallibility. I believe that they lie by omission, deliberately failing to correct the widespread mistake, because it serves the hierarchy well.

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | August 30, 2009 8:31 PM

@ AdamK

"Teller and I don't have a god in this fight."

Because there's nothing in this particular fight to challenge the Goddess Aynrand?

My favorite delicious irony is that Ayn Rand had only contempt for libertarians. Not to defend her elitist silliness, it's just that were she alive you could easily do the "Marshall McLuhan" scene from Annie Hall with her vs. most Libertarians (maybe Penn Jillette?). Imagine her telling off one of them: "You obviously do not understand my work."

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 30, 2009 8:41 PM

Certainly when I was a Catholic I was taught that the Pope was infallible. It was mentioned that he was only infallible when speaking ex cathedra (from the throne) but the impression was given that referred to "official pronouncements." So the Pope could be wrong if he said the Green Bay Packers will make it into the playoffs. But if he's reading an encyclical then, as a good Catholic, you should click your heels and answer jawohl mein Herr 'cause otherwise you's in deep doo-doo for the rest of eternity.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 30, 2009 8:45 PM

I've been staying away from the whole "P&T denialism" discussion, but I think I'll jump in now. I bought season #1 of Bullshit! on DVD and found it to be mostly quite entertaining. But there were two episodes that really pissed me off and made me scream at my monitor. The first one was the AGW episode that has been getting plenty of attention on this thread, but I thought the second one was even worse than that. They had an episode where they denied the science behind the dangers of second hand smoke. They claimed that there was only one study supporting the dangers of SHS and that it had been discredited by one of their Libertarian think-tank "experts". They then showed the newer studies that governments use when considering smoking bans all cite this earlier "discredited" study. They then went on to interview the least knowledgeable smoking ban activist (making him look bad), while their "experts" seemed calm and rational. That episode really got under my skin.

After seeing those two episodes, I began to ask myself if all their other episodes were just as sloppy and dishonest, but I just didn't notice because I agreed with their message? I concluded that the answer was yes.

Having said that, I still find many of their episodes quite funny and entertaining. In their episode on the bible, Penn had a great quote that I'll never forget: "Ironically, Monty Python's Life Of Brian is more historically accurate than Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ."

Posted by: AJ Milne | August 30, 2009 8:53 PM

I personally think their show is primarily for entertainment purposes (like the Daily Show), and thus I don't tend to take it too seriously to begin with.

Yeah, that.

I mean, I tend to bear in mind the generally flippant nature of the whole thing. You don't expect a balanced approach on Bullshit!, and me, I don't even necessarily expect particularly tight research... nor do I always expect I'm going to want to lend them my wheel, necessarily, for the particular axe they're grinding on a given night. I watch almost all of what they do thinking, 'okay, they're not exactly giving equal time, here...', but then, (a) I figure that's also understood from the outset, and (b) as they themselves point out in this one in particular, in some cases, it ain't like certain outfits haven't had enough 'equal time' already. Anyway, it mostly winds up as bawdy entertainment mixed in with some very blatant, very obvious advocacy, insofar as their biases are clearly stated upfront, pretty much...

And sure, given who they are and what they believe, they're probably not the guys, either, exactly, to, say, really take industry to task on union busting, or put in a word for the plight of the migrant worker... But then, (c) I don't have to agree with everything everyone says to regard some of what they do as valuable, and (d) ya gotta take everything everyone says with a grain of salt anyway. For P&T, maybe a few more, sure, but the point is: I'm not looking to them as all-knowing oracles--I'm hoping they'll have a few good points, or just a few good zingers I can use. And so it's still a pretty good show when they get to chewing on the right bone.

(/And, of course, a little bit of '...and then there's this asshole...' goes a long way when you're dealing with out and out BS artists like the Vatican. Y'know... to catch a thief, 'n all...)

Posted by: Wayward son | August 30, 2009 9:13 PM

AJM - "But then, (c) I don't have to agree with everything everyone says to regard some of what they do as valuable,"

I agree with you, and I actually really had been looking forward to their episode a year ago knowing that they were libertarians and anti-AGW. However, that was because I thought there were some interesting angles they could have taken. For instance along the lines of Lomborg or Ronald Bailey who accept the science of AGW but feel that money, at this moment, could be better spent elsewhere like, say fighting malaria and hunger in Africa while waiting for our technology to improve before attempting to bring down emissions. Or perhaps give examples which "hippies" hate that may help us reduce emissions like genetically modified foods.

Posted by: Rich | August 30, 2009 9:25 PM

"I know what it means. I wasn't criticizing your spelling. I was criticizing your inability to read. There was no miscommunication on Ric's end. You fucked up."

I wasn't talking to Ric. It was a general statement. Got that? I can read just fine thank you. Take your head out of your ass now.

Posted by: Michelle R | August 30, 2009 9:37 PM

For the P&T bashing, relax folks. Do you have to agree with all they say? No. Do they say the right things all the time? No. Are they the absolute truth on this planet? Heck no. Do you have to remain skeptical? OF COURSE. Do they score a ton of good points pretty often? Yes. Is Bullshit bloody entertaining? Oh sweet sweet yes.

My favorite show.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 30, 2009 9:45 PM

I wasn't talking to Ric. It was a general statement. Got that? I can read just fine thank you. Take your head out of your ass now.

Then you clearly can't read at all, because absolutely no one here suggested anything so stupid as that they're wrong about everything else too.

In fact "so anything that X say is wrong because they might be wrong about Y?" is pretty much always and everywhere a strawman.

Even in AOL chat rooms.

Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 30, 2009 9:52 PM

Hey gang! Jay Gordon's apparently decided to lead some of his minions in an effort to hijack Orac's blog. You know what to do.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 30, 2009 10:04 PM

No problem, Rich. Apologies are worth double on the internet.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 30, 2009 10:32 PM

/meta/

PZ, what's with this post over at Greg's regarding turning SB into some sort of facebook for nerds with prize draws?
Inquiring minds want to know !

/meta/

Posted by: Atheistic.ca | August 30, 2009 10:57 PM

Excellent, thanks for posting this!

Posted by: Militant Agnostic | August 31, 2009 12:16 AM

Wayward son @181

I am wondering why no episode on anti-vaccination hysteria (I am sure I would have remembered such an episode).

Given that there is a strong Libertarian streak among the anti-vaxer whackaloons (because vaccinations are sot of mandatory), I think never.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 31, 2009 1:25 AM

Great segment, and I had no idea about Bush's decree that the pope remain unassailable. F'ing great.

Yes, pretty unbelievable if you think about it.
Millions of people worship an 85 year-old guy as the representative of their god on this planet, a guy who had to be declared unassailable from lawsuits in the USA by their fundie president because he signed orders to cover up by threat of excommunication, for 10 years until after the victim reached adulthood, any sexual abuse committed by his band of marauding pedophiles.
That's not even talking about the RCC and Ratzinger declaring it groovy that husbands with HIV may kill their wifes by being against the use of condoms etc etc.

Posted by: Escuerd | August 31, 2009 2:16 AM

To use Escuerd example I think it's more a comparison between a young earth creationist and a proponent of theistic evolution. While I think both positions are wrong it's an important distinction to make, otherwise you risk wasting time attacking someone for believing the earth is 5000 years old when they already accept the age of the earth. What you should have been attacking is the foundation-less assumption of a higher power having influence over the evolutionary process.

No, I think mine was more appropriate. Theistic evolution is just a claim with no evidence. The claim that humans are not a significant driving factor is not simply without evidence, but has positive evidence against it. That's the whole point.

You also waste time and effort talking about all the evidence that the earth is heating up (which they already admit) instead of addressing their main argument which is that we may be responsible, so basically attacking straw men which is all I was trying to prevent.

I'm not sure if you're including what I linked to in this or not, but if so, you weren't paying attention. The link certainly wasn't just showing that "the Earth is warming up", but also that humans were a significant driving factor.

So excuse me for thinking that even people we disagree with should have there views and opinions represented in an honest fashion.

If that were all you were saying, I'd agree. But my point is that their actual position IS a form of denialism given what we know.

Posted by: Arwen | August 31, 2009 5:13 AM

Weird phenomenon - have you noticed that non-catholic christians won't criticise the pope? Despite the evidence about child abuse cover ups, the ban on condoms spreading AIDS, etc etc? Glad they're campaigning about the important things, like t-shirts ...

Posted by: R. Schauer | August 31, 2009 6:02 AM

I liked the video...it was worth the 1/2 hour to watch.

But I'm waiting with great anticipation for the one they do on Michele Bachmann.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 31, 2009 7:56 AM

#72 Ric

smells like global warming (which they now call climate change, in case they wanna go the other way and say it's colder)

That's where my BS detector goes off. If you want to argue an issue, please make an attempt to learn about it first.
I am almost totally ignorant about the science behind GW but I have at least educated myself to understand some of the issues. If you don't know these facts, then Shut Up until you have educated yourself:
- weather is NOT the same as climate and the models are based on long term statistical trends. If you say something like "How can they predict GW when they can't even get today's weather forecast for Pittsburgh right?", you're an idiot.
- GW is about average, permanent changes in world climates. Not local or seasonal hot & cold spells. I have read that an average, permanent increase of only 2-3 degrees could shift the temperate zone 1,000 - 2,000 miles northward, which would have a devastating effect on food production for many countries
- GW will have most of its impact on the oceans and ocean currents that drive our climate patterns.
- GW is climate change. Not to fudge the issue, as P&T say above, but because GW will make some regions hotter, some colder, some wetter, some drier. For example, if cold ocean currents from the arctic regions are shifted towards the US, the coastal climates "could" become colder.
If you want to argue that the GW models are bad or the data poor - you have a case. But if you are ignorant of the above issues, you're opinion is worthless.
I would have expected P&T to do better than they did in the above quote.

Posted by: Lukas | August 31, 2009 8:13 AM

P&T always take the libertarian side. If the libertarian side is obviously wrong, instead of attacking the credible opponents of their view, they attack the insane fringe (i.e. in the environment issue, they argued that hippie treehuggers were bullshit instead of arguing against credible environmentalists; they argued against PETA, but left out credible animal rights groups; they argued against uninformed hippies - again - in the global warming episode, but ignored all the science behind it and didn't argue against *that*). Sometimes, that is problematic because people don't differentiate between the fringe parts of a group, and the mainstream part, and by attacking the fringe part, but ignoring the mainstream, P&T basically discredit the mainstream part without giving them a chance to defend themselves.

The show is entertaining and always interesting, but it's important to realize that they're sometimes using selective sources, and they're often not arguing with credible opponents even when it would easily be possible to find credible opponents on a topic. They are great at pointing out interesting perspectives and they're funny when they attack obvious kooks, but often when it's about actual science, they kind of suck at telling you the actual truth, or interviewing credible opponents.

Posted by: Aetre | August 31, 2009 8:39 AM

^ What Walton (post 211) said.

I agree with Penn and Teller about 2/3 of the time, but they're always worth watching. They're pretty good about having reasons for what they believe--even about global warming, where they're pretty much dead wrong, as people have said.

I don't quite see how some of you "can't take them seriously" at all because of one opinion they have, though. That's like saying Miller shouldn't have testified in Kitsmiller v. Dover because he's Catholic--i.e. he believes in God and therefore can't be taken seriously on any subject at all.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 31, 2009 8:51 AM

Unfortunately, we're seeing a little of the same silly attitude on this thread.

As usual you're full of shit, Walton.

Quotes or it didn't happen.

Are they right about global warming being bullshit? I personally suspect so, but I'm not a climate scientist - nor are they - and I could be entirely wrong.

Still a creationist, I see.

On what grounds can you "personally suspect so" when you don't even understand the science being discussed?

This is by far the ugliest facet of your personality. Even when I was a glibertarian, I was not such a haughty fool about empiricism.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 31, 2009 9:10 AM

I don't quite see how some of you "can't take them seriously" at all because of one opinion they have, though. That's like saying Miller shouldn't have testified in Kitsmiller v. Dover because he's Catholic--i.e. he believes in God and therefore can't be taken seriously on any subject at all.

Again, I enjoy the show sometimes, as it can be fun. The reason I don't take them seriously and did not even before I knew their politics is that they are comedians. I have tremendous respect for their skill in stage magic, and they are in this way brilliant. I also have tremendous respect for Ken Miller.

The analogy is not a good one. Ken Miller believes in a God of the Gaps; his gaps are in tiny fractions of the first second after the big bang.

It is entirely unnecessary, but as a well-placed God of the Gaps, empirically speaking there is no evidence against it. Ken Miller is fantasizing about D&D while he works. It is perhaps understandable why he would like to.

Penn and Teller are ignoring the piles of empirical evidence that directly contradict them. This is not fantasy of Miller's sort; it's more blatantly lying. It demonstrates an intellectual laziness on their part. It does require that we reevaluate the quality of the rest of their work, like The Science Pundit mentions, and ask whether they are not just reinforcing our prejudices while being unfair to people we mutually dislike.

Posted by: Walton | August 31, 2009 9:18 AM

And, strange gods, you still haven't replied to a number of my points over on the "Baby Bear" thread. You can either reply there, or send me an email.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 31, 2009 9:29 AM

Since another of the major media hobby-horses is global warming ("we're all going to drown", etc. ad naus.), I am inclined to be sceptical. -Walton

This is blatantly dishonest, since it has been pointed out to you numerous times that it is the consensus of relevant scientific experts that AGW is a real and urgent problem. You can find that consensus in the IPCC reports for 2007.
You take the position you do because the necessity to take action to limit AGW goes against your stupid, wicked ideology, that's all.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 31, 2009 9:44 AM

Since another of the major media hobby-horses is global warming ("we're all going to drown", etc. ad naus.) -Walton

A bare-faced lie.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 31, 2009 9:55 AM

The IPCC is, by its very nature, a highly politicised body.

Therefore not to be trusted. The CAM in America has received billions of public funding yet hasn't had a single good result in 10 years. You're using secondary bodies to dismiss primary information. That, Walton, is bad science no matter how you look at it.

Are you honestly suggesting that climate scientists don't know how to do their job?

Posted by: Ric | August 31, 2009 10:13 AM

As usual you're full of shit, Walton.

GFT.

Now, to Aetre @ 212:

I don't quite see how some of you "can't take them seriously" at all because of one opinion they have, though. That's like saying Miller shouldn't have testified in Kitsmiller v. Dover because he's Catholic--i.e. he believes in God and therefore can't be taken seriously on any subject at all.

Seriously, go back and read the other posts in this thread. We don't have to rehash this. I don't take P&T seriously not because of one opinion they have but because they are more than willing to play fast and loose with the science in order to push their political agenda. You know, kind of like creationists do to push their religious agenda. Basically, P&T are liars.

Posted by: Walton | August 31, 2009 10:14 AM

Are you honestly suggesting that climate scientists don't know how to do their job?

No. But there are many layers of filtration between the primary data and the information received by the lay public.

As I understand it, climate researchers, like any other research scientists, look at masses of empirical data, analyse it, conduct studies, and write lengthy, complex and technical reports which are incomprehensible to anyone except other climate scientists. The IPCC - a much smaller group of scientists selected by, and responsible to, governments - then collates this information from the scientific literature and compiles periodic reports, making, in the process, choices and assessments about what to include, what to prioritise, and which predictions to accept. The resulting assessment reports are also long and technical, so the IPCC writes summaries; and, of course, in writing these summaries, they, again, make editorial choices about what to emphasise and which predictions to accept. Clearly, there are ample opportunities for politicisation in this process.

Then, government bureaucrats and the media read the summaries - which are drastically simplified from the original data - and pick out the bits they like; and this cherry-picked, simplified, sensationalised information is what permeates to Joe Public (and Joe Politician). And for the vast majority of us who are not climate scientists, we have no better information than this. Hence why I don't trust it. I have no alternative; I can't read and understand the peer-reviewed scientific papers. I don't have the knowledge or, I suspect, the intellect to do that.

Posted by: James Sweet | August 31, 2009 10:22 AM

Holy crap, I think the video disappeared as I was clicking on it! It initially loaded, but there was no sound. I tried going to Vimeo directly, and now no matter what I do it says the video has been deleted. Total butt!

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 31, 2009 10:23 AM

Walton, by this measure you personally have no justification for evolution over intelligent design. This is why it is appropriate to call you a creationist.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 31, 2009 10:31 AM

No. But there are many layers of filtration between the primary data and the information received by the lay public.

So when there's a scientific consensus on the issue of global warming among the relevant climate scientists, should it even matter in the slightest what the media says?

Even though the media is far more sceptical than the scientific literature is... but don't let that get in the way of pretending you're rejecting AGW out of anything beyond your libertarian leanings.

Posted by: Eidolon | August 31, 2009 10:39 AM

Walton @ 228:

Take the advice of Wayward son and read the actual reports. Plenty of illustrations and there is not a lot that is only for climatologists.

If you actually do read these reports, you will find there is far less cherry picking than you imagine. Strap on a pair and actually try to understand rather than bail out before even giving it a go. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Posted by: Wayward son | August 31, 2009 10:41 AM

Walton - "None of these considerations apply to global warming. Yes, it is manifestly the case that the earth has experienced a warming trend in recent years - just as it has experienced warm periods, and cool periods, at many times in the past. But there are known factors other than anthropogenic carbon emissions, such as solar cycles, which affect the temperature of the earth. And so it is not self-evident to me, as a non-scientist, that human carbon emissions are the principal cause of the current warming trend. This doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't; but it distinguishes the AGW controversy, on which reasonable people can legitimately take different positions, from the so-called creation-evolution "controversy", where the answer is self-evident to any reasonable person."

Nonsense. You could easily, as a non-scientist, research why it is that legitimate scientists dismiss previous causes of climate change for the current change. These scientists are not stupid. They didn't forget to look to see if previous causes were responsible for the current changes. They investigated the evidence. You could also easily research why they understand that greenhouse gases trap heat. So they have strong evidence if favor of human ghg emissions and strong evidence excluding previous causes. Yup, it is pretty much up in the air.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 31, 2009 10:51 AM

Walton,

Let's say for the sake of argument you reviewed the data of AGW (which you can always do) and came to the conclusion that it was real. Do you think that free market/libertarian policies would be effective in dealing with the crisis?

Posted by: Dianne | August 31, 2009 10:55 AM

My computer says the video no longer exists. Did the Vatican cabal get it or did Penn and Teller decide that people should pay for their work and pull it?

Posted by: pdferguson | August 31, 2009 11:00 AM

strange dogs before me slandered:

Still a creationist, I see.

Where did you come up with this idiotic statement?

Walton, by this measure you personally have no justification for evolution over intelligent design. This is why it is appropriate to call you a creationist.

What the fuck? Man, you are spewing more nonsense than the worst IDiots we get here.

I really get tired of the reflexive Walton bashing. His first post was thoughtful and well written, but you jumped down his throat anyways, calling him "full of shit". Although he does go over the line at times, this thread wasn't one of them. So who is "full of shit" here?

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 31, 2009 11:06 AM

Still a creationist, I see.

Where did you come up with this idiotic statement?

You might sometimes consider that there are ongoing contexts of discussion which you have not been a party to over the last year.

Walton, by this measure you personally have no justification for evolution over intelligent design. This is why it is appropriate to call you a creationist.

What the fuck? Man, you are spewing more nonsense than the worst IDiots we get here.

Really, pdferguson? You're the only one who didn't understand the comparison. Walton can't understand the primary sources in climatology and claims that this justifies his wallowing in willful ignorance. Well, he can't understand the primary sources in biology either. I'm holding him to his own standards.

Posted by: Viperfish | August 31, 2009 11:20 AM

Hi, I just wanted to clear one thing. P i T did apologize for global warming episode and admited they were wrong. (althought that one on second hand smoke is still a dumb episode).

One question-Why are many people here upset at libertarians? I read some works of Ayn Rand center(but none of her works) and listened to P i T and they seem to be nice people. In my country we dont have libertarians (not by that name at least) so im rather new to that concept.

Posted by: pdferguson | August 31, 2009 11:23 AM

You might sometimes consider that there are ongoing contexts of discussion which you have not been a party to over the last year.

Save your condescending concern trolling, Skippy. I've been a reader here far longer than that, and have called out Walton on more than one occasion. Just because I don't join in every Walton bashing thread doesn't mean I don't know what he writes. He has been posting some very thoughtful pieces at times, yet morons like you continue to jump down his throat without the slightest provocation.

Really, pdferguson? You're the only one who didn't understand the comparison.

Really? I'm the only one? What a stupid fuckin' comment. I guess you understand everything about everyone who reads this website, eh?

Walton can't understand the primary sources in climatology and claims that this justifies his wallowing in willful ignorance. Well, he can't understand the primary sources in biology either. I'm holding him to his own standards.

So, by admitting he is not an expert in climatology, and that he doesn't know all the answers about global warming, you think that's "wallowing in willful ignorance"? And that somehow magically transfers to the field of biology, making him a creationist too?

Like I said, you're just as bad as the worst religionists we get here with your juvenile ad hominem attacks and your inability to respond to the content of the writing rather than your disklike of the writer.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 31, 2009 11:27 AM

sgbm,

calling Walton a creationist must be one of the stupidest things I've seen on here for a long time, and Ive been here over the last year, something you seem to strangely be accusing pdferguson of not to have been, as if it mattered to this particular discussion .

Wish you could just muster the grace and admit that was a mistake.

His posts on this thread have been good, you might not agree with their substance, but they were fair posts.

Walton can't understand the primary sources in climatology and claims that this justifies his wallowing in willful ignorance

So this makes him a creationist?

You're even further gone than I thought.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 31, 2009 11:28 AM

Walton,
The IPCC reports are based on the scientific literature. They are put together by relevant experts, subject to scrutiny by additional experts. They contain copious scientific references. The Lords' Select Committee on Economic Affairs report you cite is put together by non-scientists, many with obvious political axes to grind - and indeed, obvious financial interests in fossil fuels (take a look at those listed at the end!), and with very few references. It also precedes the 2007 IPCC report. It makes accusations of bias against the IPCC, but produces very little to substantiate them - nothing at all so far as the physical science is concerned.

So far as the physical science is concerned, the Select Committee report is grossly incompetent - unsurprising when no-one with relevant expertise was involved. To give two examples, they mention among the "concerns" that witnesses raised:

(1) "concerns that changes in ice-core record CO2 concentrations might have followed temperature rise rather than the other way round;"

Anyone with any knowledge of the area knows that this is common ground: CO2 concentrations did indeed begin to rise after temperatures at the end of ice ages: the rise in CO2 then provided positive feedback, raising temperatures further. This is all well-understood science, but it's a common denialist talking point.

(2) "the manner in which the GCMs are adjusted until they align with the observed data;"

They are not so adjusted: the models are changed only as the understanding of the physical processes involved increases.

Most of the Select Committee's criticism is with regard to impacts - which are fully dealt with in the 2007 IPCC reports, which includes positive impacts - as indeed does the 2001 IPCC report, as the Select Committee accepts in a footnote while giving a contrary impression in the main text; and the emissions scenarios used (these scenarios were constructed in the 1990s and issued in 2000). Interestingly, annual emissions increases 2000-2008 have been around 3.1%, toward the upper end of the 1.4% to 3.4% assumed in the scenarios ( Do recent emission trends imply higher
emissions forever?), while the Lords' Select Committee on Economic Affairs report is claiming the growth in emissions in the SRES scenarios is too high. So it seems that even in areas where they might have been assumed to have some expertise, they cocked it up quite badly. (The paper I link to suggests the rate of growth may fall, but notes that meeting the 450ppm equivalent peak concentration target - which relevant experts consider essential if we are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change - requires emissions to peak by 2020 and fall 50% by 2050. No-one at all, to my knowledge, has suggested that anything like this will happen without strenuous efforts to make it do so.

The Select Committee report itself says:
In general, any change in emissions due to
changed economic assumptions will translate into a smaller effect on concentrations and an even smaller effect on temperature. This in no way excuses poor analysis in the emissions scenarios, but it may mean that projections of warming are not themselves greatly affected.

So in brief, the flaws in scenarios about which the Committee makes such a fuss are admitted, by that same Committee, to make little difference to projected temperature increases.

The Committee's report is, by any standard, a lightweight piece compared to the Stern review, which came to very different conclusions. Since you're so fond of Nobel Prize-winning economists, Walton, you should note the following comments on Stern:

# If the world is waiting for a calm, reasonable, carefully argued approach to climate change, Nick Stern and his team have produced one. They outline a feasible adjustment policy at tolerable cost beginning now. Sooner is much better." Robert M. Solow, Nobel Prize economist 1987
# "The Stern report shows us, with utmost clarity, while allowing fully for all the uncertainties, what global warming is going to mean; and what can and should be done to reduce it. It provides numbers for the economic impact, and for the necessary economic policies. It deserves the widest circulation. I wish it the greatest possible impact. Governments have a clear and immediate duty to accept the challenge it represents." James Mirrlees, Nobel Prize economist 1996
# “The stark prospects of climate change and its mounting economic and human costs are clearly brought out in this searching investigation. What is particularly striking is the identification of ways and means of sharply minimizing these penalties through acting right now, rather than waiting for our lives to be overrun by rapidly advancing adversities. The world would be foolish to neglect this strong but strictly time-bound practical message.” Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize economist 1998
# "The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change provides the most thorough and rigorous analysis to date of the costs and risks of climate change, and the costs and risks of reducing emissions. It makes clear that the question is not whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to act. To be sure, there are uncertainties, but what it makes clear is that the downside uncertainties—aggravated by the complex dynamics of long delays, complex interactions, and strong non-linearities—make a compelling case for action. And it provides a comprehensive agenda—one which is economically and politically feasible—behind which the entire world can unite in addressing this most important threat to our future well being." Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize economist 2001

Posted by: Mike Daniels | August 31, 2009 11:41 AM

Has anyone found a mirror? The video has been pulled.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 31, 2009 11:50 AM

sgbm,

Walton has had quite a remarkable come around in the months and years I have been following his comments here, that includes his religious views.
Since you claim to have been around and accuse pdferguson of not having been around, did you miss it, or are you ignoring it?

Whatever clever point you think you are trying to make, calling him a creationist is wrong.Metaphor bla bla, its wrong.

Posted by: Nelson M. | August 31, 2009 11:52 AM

Thanks @Davey. I was hoping someone would post an alternate link :-)

Posted by: The Cash Man | August 31, 2009 11:56 AM

Penn and Teller have never denied global warming. What they called bullshit on was what most enviromental groups are actually about (season 1), and Carbon Credits/Eco Guilt (Season 6). Pernn specifically states at the end of the Season 6 episode that he doesn't know if global warming is real or not, and even if it is, nobody knows if humans are the primary source or even if we could fix it if it were really happening.

Just putting that out there.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 31, 2009 11:57 AM

Since you claim to have been around and accuse pdferguson of not having been around, did you miss it, or are you ignoring it?

Rorschach, I did not accuse pdferguson of not being around. I said he apparently missed certain context in the meantime. Probably by not reading certain threads or committing certain exchanges to memory, which is fine, but does mean there's some context lost. Specifically the ongoing context in which I call Walton a creationist as an analogy to his being an AGW denialist.

Whatever clever point you think you are trying to make, calling him a creationist is wrong.Metaphor bla bla, its wrong.

Jeez, I didn't call him a rapist. There's nothing wrong with calling him a creationist.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 31, 2009 11:59 AM

Now you see why I am reluctant to form an opinion either way about climate change. - Walton

No, I don't. You don't need to understand all the physical science - I certainly don't - to make a reasonable assessment of the relevant expertise of those on either side, and the places and ways their cases are presented - just as in the creation/evolution, does-smoking-cause-cancer or does-HIV-cause-AIDS case.

If you're being honest with us, then you're not being honest with yourself.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 31, 2009 12:02 PM

That is not the case, and I apologise if my earlier comments gave that impression. Rather, I am being criticised for refusing to adopt a fixed opinion.

No, I'm criticizing you for thinking that it was at all reasonable to say "are they right about global warming being bullshit? I personally suspect so, but I'm not a climate scientist - nor are they - and I could be entirely wrong."

You have no grounds to even "personally suspect so." You have no grounds to adopt even your tentative position against AGW. It is as intellectually dishonest as being unsure about evolution and yet insisting that schools should "teach the controversy."

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 31, 2009 12:06 PM

Can anyone here provide more info on Penn's claim that the RC Church opposed smallpox vaccinations? (Teh Google's answers on this one are particularly scattered, contradictory and unreliable.)

Posted by: Rorschach | August 31, 2009 12:10 PM

There's nothing wrong with calling him a creationist.

WTF??

Are you on drugs or something?
The guy has changed his religious views based on his discussions here over time, yes he still drives me up the wall with this lib BS, but that aside he has displayed none of the creationist closed mind mentality on religious issues, this "I know Im right deep down in my heart" crap that the creationists usually exhibit.
Or you for that matter.
So give the guy a break and admit that you are wrong ffs.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 31, 2009 12:12 PM

However, I've had enough of being ignorant. I'm going to go away and try to learn about climate science, as best I can, from the resources available on the internet.

I'm glad to hear it. I recommend you include this in your studies:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

RealClimate is a blog by working climate scientists.

Posted by: bonze | August 31, 2009 12:21 PM

Feynmaniac #240

Let's say for the sake of argument you reviewed the data of AGW (which you can always do) and came to the conclusion that it was real. Do you think that free market/libertarian policies would be effective in dealing with the crisis?

That's an easy one (at least for those libertarians who are not anarcho-capitalists): a carbon tax.

The implementation is not simple, but the concept is. The real problem is that this needs to be imposed globally, which is a political nightmare.

Epikt #237

Oh, wait. That's not the libertarian-approved conclusion you wanted.

Steve Dunlap #71

Because human-caused global warming is something that unrestricted capitalism did much to cause and can do nothing to reverse will always compel libertarians to deny that human activity is the principle cause and government intervention the most effective solution for that problem.

This kind of comment, which alas appears all too frequently on Pharyngula, is, uh, massively misguided. Unlike, say, Stalinists, there is no central authority setting out the Party Line for libertarians to follow.

As for "unrestricted capitalism," way back when I was a capital-L Libertarian, I heard few people in libertarian circles favoring it. E.g., I knew a number of libertarians who thought limited-liability corporations were fundamentally illegitimate. (As an example of the evils wrought by corporate structures, you might check out Michael Lewis' claim that the conversion of investment banks from partnerships to corporations lay behind their management's abandonment of sound investment principles.) There's nothing in "libertarian" principles that requires that governments shield investors from liability.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 31, 2009 12:23 PM

The guy has changed his religious views based on his discussions here over time, yes he still drives me up the wall with this lib BS, but that aside he has displayed none of the creationist closed mind mentality on religious issues, this "I know Im right deep down in my heart" crap that the creationists usually exhibit.

One of his working premises, that it is immoral to tax rich people at higher rates than the rest of us, is faith-based. Do you honestly believe that he can be shaken of that notion? If so, try to change his mind.

Or you for that matter.

Concerning this refrain, you're a hypocrite until you answer point 2.

So give the guy a break and admit that you are wrong ffs.

When he can argue why Behe's flagellum is not evidence against evolution, or when he brings his standards of evidence for climatology into line with his standards for biology, then I'll actually be wrong, and will happily admit it.

Posted by: Alan B | August 31, 2009 12:33 PM

I see the video has been deleted from their site.

No reason given.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 31, 2009 12:36 PM

I see the video has been deleted from their site.

No reason given.

My guess is Showtime didn't like people posting videos of theirs.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 31, 2009 12:41 PM

Can any of the Aussie commenters here remember who the guy was that Jon Faine had on ABC radio a couple weeks ago who has written a book about global warming, got all these independent scientists to give him their best estimate of whats going to happen?
Can't for the live of me find it.

Posted by: Alan B | August 31, 2009 1:12 PM

#280, #282 Rev. BigDumbChimp

My guess is Showtime didn't like people posting videos of theirs.

That was my guess, too.

Posted by: tuckerch | August 31, 2009 2:06 PM

Deleted P&T video:

BitTorrent is your friend.

As is NZB Matrix (dot) com. (for example)

Finding a BitTorrent client and/or NZB app is left as an exercise for the student.

Infringing copyright is a crime. What you consider "fair use" and what CBS/Showtime consider "fair use" could be open to debate.

Posted by: MikeyM | August 31, 2009 3:01 PM

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 31, 2009 12:06 PM

Can anyone here provide more info on Penn's claim that the RC Church opposed smallpox vaccinations? (Teh Google's answers on this one are particularly scattered, contradictory and unreliable.)

I first read about it in Andrew White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/medicine/vaccination.html

Posted by: Kevin | August 31, 2009 3:09 PM

At times i like them, but then they have an episode like their Tax episode, and I just have to turn off. Turning to Dick Armey for wisdom??? All the right wing bs about theft, and how taxes are evil...libertarians live in such a fantasy world. And they're incredibly selfish.

Posted by: Viperfish | August 31, 2009 3:27 PM

Nerd of Redhead, and Strange gods before me, thank you for the answers and for the link.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 31, 2009 4:15 PM

And no, we don't believe in no such thing as public welfare, either.

Aetre, are you a libertarian for progressive taxation?

Eesh. You'd think we were anarchists or something.

Actually anarchists are generally more well-received around here. There's at least one in the Order of the Molly.

Posted by: jwc | August 31, 2009 5:11 PM

@159:
So basically if he says "I'm not convinced" then he's a denialist. Jesus-nonexistent-christ.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 31, 2009 5:20 PM

So basically if he says "I'm not convinced" then he's a denialist. - jwc

No, moron. If he makes a TV show in which he ignores all the scientific evidence in favour of his halfwit looneytarianism, he's a denialist. Got it yet?

Posted by: Aetre | August 31, 2009 6:07 PM

Aetre, are you a libertarian for progressive taxation?

Perhaps I should clarify. The sense in which I'm libertarian is the sense that I don't believe government should be able, at all, to do much of what it currently does: police the world, hold prisoners in Guantanamo, define marriage at all... (note: this is distinct from what I see as the liberal position of redefining marriage to allow for gay marriage, etc. ...I'm against the concept of a marriage license to begin with. Whether it's a liberal's permission or a conservative's, why do I need anyone's permission at all to get married? This is a union between persons A and B. Person C, the government, should just not be involved.)

Add to the list: regulating abortion rights, criminalizing marijuana, giving taxpayer money to religiously exclusive organizations like the Boy Scouts, getting involved in people's sex lives at all (think prostitution)...

To me, the government exists for three primary purposes, and I list them in order of priority: 1. physically protect its citizens from external or internal harm. 2. ensure equal freedoms and rights, as much as it is able, to all of its citizens, so that they can live their lives as they see fit (as long as they don't break rule #1 and harm others), and 3. ask, "How high," when the people say, "Jump--" that is, do what's popular. Anything that falls outside of those three functions is none of the government's business. And when I say priority, I mean: if a bill is popular, it should be passed if and only if it doesn't break rules 1 or 2 (endanger the populace and/or threaten equal rights).

The case of global warming, for example, is one where I can see the governments of the world stepping in as a way to protect all of humanity from very real harm. In keeping with #2, everyone should have to play by the same rules. I don't like, for example, the USA getting out of the Kyoto Agreement while most other countries make sacrifices. Even if it's unpopular in the USA, governments should have the sense to do what's best for the safety of everyone, and that includes future generations.

Now, to your question about progressive taxation: it doesn't physically harm people, so that checks out. It does take away the freedom of individuals to decide how they want to spend their money, but it aids equality of opportunity for others, so this one's a trade-off. Is it popular? ...Tricky. In principle, many people may agree about progressive taxation, but the specific current tax law seems quite a bit unpopular...

Sorry to be so lengthy about saying this, but I kind of shrug my shoulders at it. To my mind, if the government only did what it was supposed to do and stayed out of areas where it shouldn't have a say, we might easily be paying lower taxes--at every bracket. But the reason I'm libertarian isn't taxation specifically; it's the much broader complaint that the government often oversteps its bounds--or so I would argue.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 31, 2009 6:27 PM

MikeyM @ # 290: A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom...

A fascinating old (1896) book - thanks for the link!

White's account of smallpox focuses almost entirely on the history of inoculation in the Americas (in which Catholic priests were active both pro- and con-), with only a passing reference (to the "French theologians of the Sorbonne") to Catholic reactions closer to their HQ. From this it appears that Penn & Teller were painting with too broad a brush, which shocking accusation obviously accounts for why they now try to withdraw their work from the public eye. ;-)

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 31, 2009 6:43 PM

Aetre, it's interesting how people end up choosing the words that describe them. Excepting the caveats raised by Bill Dauphin in the second half of this linked comment, I agree with everything you said. Yet I generally call myself a (small-d small-s) democratic socialist.

Posted by: BillW | August 31, 2009 10:20 PM

You can still find the video here.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | September 1, 2009 7:59 AM

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 31, 2009 8:43 AM

I don't quite see how some of you "can't take them seriously" at all because of one opinion they have, though. That's like saying Miller shouldn't have testified in Kitsmiller v. Dover because he's Catholic--i.e. he believes in God and therefore can't be taken seriously on any subject at all.

Or for example Hitchens is wrong about everything because he was a pro-war jackass.

From reading the thread, that doesn't really adress the issue.

The major difference is that Miller's Catholicism is basically stupid, but it is a statement of what he actually believes.

Hitchens, as a pro-war jackass, was still an honest pro-war jackass (or appeared to be anyway).

However the objection to P&T's AGW episode is not stupidity but dishonesty, which sets the whole question on the realm of whether you can trust them as sources.

Fair disclosure, I haven't seen the episode in question, or much of Penn and Teller in general, so I don't know, but that is basically what the argument looks to be about to me. I am purely going on the argument here.

Posted by: Bob | September 1, 2009 9:18 AM

You can still see it at:
http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/08/penn-and-teller-bullshit-vatican.html

Posted by: Thomas Paine | September 1, 2009 4:32 PM

The Vatican is a dagger in the heart of Italy.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 2, 2009 12:33 PM

Reason 589 why I love Penn and Teller. They are sometimes wrong, as in the global warming and pro-smoking issues discussed earlier in the thread, but no one takes on religious authority in quite such a gloriously irreverent way as P & T (except, of course, our beloved Prophet of Cthulhu himself).

Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 8:39 AM

It is a moral view, and so not really very open to debate based on facts. To use that to argue that someone will not change their minds on a scientific point seems nonsensical.

To defend this moral view (as you seem to also imply that it is completely unreasonable), one could point out that there are all manner of charges and taxes which are levied at a flat rate in currency units, which is even more extreme than charging at a flat percentage of income. - John

So you say moral views are not very open to debate based on facts, then offer a defence of a specific moral view... based on facts. Not very relevant facts, of course, but still, facts. Does it strike you that there might be an inconsistency lurking in your comment somewhere?

Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 9:11 AM

Thanks strange gods - I'd stopped reading that thread! *Sigh* - looks like I'll have to abandon my faith in Walton as an incurable glibertarian ;-)

Posted by: bobscience | February 5, 2010 11:12 AM

Honestly there's not much intellectual merit in watching a comedy show on all these topics where we already agree with the hosts.