Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Massimo Pigliucci | September 25th 2009 11:17 PM | 15 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Rationally Speaking articles

All

About Massimo Pigliucci

Massimo Pigliucci is Professor in the Departments of Ecology & Evolution and of Philosophy at Stony Brook University, NY.

His research is on the evolution of genotype-environment interactions


... Full Bio

I like Penn&Teller, the magicians and debunkers of pseudoscience and general inanity. I regularly use clips from their show in my critical reasoning class, despite cringing every time Penn indulges in his “fuck this” and “motherfucker that” exercise in free speech (it distracts the students from the real point, not to mention the always lurking possibility of an administrator asking me about the appropriateness of foul language in a philosophy class). Heck, I even recently went to Vegas to see them in person, had a photo taken with Teller, and managed to tell him (to his surprise) about how my students enjoy stimulating discussions triggered by the duo’s antics.

But as we have learned recently from the Atheist Alliance / Dawkins Foundation / Bill Maher fiasco, “skepticism” is sometimes too broad a label, as someone can be properly skeptical in politics but not about pseudoscience (Maher), while someone else may be great at debunking astrology and magnetic therapy, and yet also unable to shed some huge blinders when it comes to politically charged issues. The latter is, unfortunately, Penn&Teller’s case, as made excruciatingly clear by the 2008 (season 6) episode “Being Green” of "Bullshit!" I just watched it last night, and I found myself wanting to call up Penn to let go a few expletives of my own. Fortunately, I don’t have his phone number.



Penn & Teller have been very good at showing that just because one is concerned about the environment it doesn’t mean that one can think critically or act rationally. Their demonstration of well meaning environmentalists signing up to ban the “dangerous and ubiquitous” chemical known as dihydrogen monoxide (i.e., water) is priceless. In “Being Green” they pull off some of the same useful cautionary tales by showing how easily people can be duped by “green guilt” into all sorts of nonsense, like walking around with gravel (for which they paid real money) in their pockets in order to feel “connected with the earth.” Even more disturbingly, the episode raises some serious questions about large scale exploitation of pro-environment sentiment by web-based companies selling “carbon offsets” that are calculated in ways which the companies themselves have a hard time explaining.

But you know even our smart debunkers are running out of arguments when they choose to introduce former Vice President and Nobel winner Al Gore as an “asshole.” Again, there may be some legitimate criticism of Gore’s arguments and even tactics, but to give him the same treatment Penn & Teller usually reserve for real assholes, like con artists who sell snake oil to gullible people, just seems the kind of ad hominem attack that reflects badly on the attacker.

And going back to the issue of carbon offsets for a moment. It is one thing to alert people that they need to look into the companies that offer them, how the offsets are calculated, and how they are used. But Penn & Teller explicitly compare these offsets to the indulgences to avoid hell that were sold by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages (and which eventually helped bring about Martin Luther’s Reformation and the rise of Protestantism). I admit that it is funny to see P&T in medieval church garments, but really? Do they seriously mean to imply that the two are on the same level?

Hell doesn’t exist, and the Vatican is a corrupt operation for making money and inducing misery (as Penn & Teller themselves masterfully showed in a more recent episode of their series), but we really are fucking up (to use Penn’s florid language) with the environment, and it is no joke.

Except, of course, that Penn & Teller’s libertarian blinders simply do not allow them to accept something that is so obvious to anyone who looks at the data and listens to the actual experts in atmospheric science: yes, Penn, global warming is happening; and yes, Teller, a good part of it is caused by human beings. Instead, the best Penn & Teller can do is to resuscitate a television weather man from the 1970s to assure us that global warming is a myth. And of course we have the predictable appearance of a guy from a libertarian think tank (the Cascade Policy Institute), who has no credentials that we know of, except being President of said think tank. (Note to self: create own think tank and declare yourself President. Make sure to have web site and business card. No thinking is actually necessary.) Needless to say, no one with a knowledgeable alternative viewpoint is presented during the show.

Instead, our libertarian heros keep telling us to relax, enjoy life, and drive SUVs, despite showing at the beginning of the episode a good number of frightening examples of all too real environmental destruction. Even Penn and Teller, however, have limits. Right at the end of the show, Penn enters a confessional (again with the Catholic Church!) and admits that he isn’t sure that there isn’t global warming, and that he isn’t positive that humans don’t cause it. But he tells us that even if that were true, heck, nobody knows what to do about it, so once again, go out and party all night long, because somehow technology and the god of free markets will solve every problem for us.


Comments

dorigo's picture
Hi Massimo,

I have never seen the duo, which does not make it to cable TV in Italy. However, you picture a show which may lets you down by attacking Gore, after having done a good job at exposing frauds. The contrast is stark, and it triggers your anger. I well understand it, but this thing is what it is, a show: it does not look to me like a educational program. So you well know it is bound to please the audience, and like it or not, there are quite a few fellows out there that not only like foul language, but they also think Al Gore is a stupid jerk. No wonder they liked the show.
Science and rationality need other avenues to be taught to laymen, unfortunately. TV has long ceased to be a means of education for the masses. We ache every time we are shown we need to find alternatives, but that is the reality of things: people do not watch TV to get smarter.

Cheers,
T.

Ladislav Kocbach's picture
Dear Tommaso,
you write:
"TV has long ceased to be a means of education for the masses. We ache
every time we are shown we need to find alternatives, but that is the
reality of things: people do not watch TV to get smarter."

Well, which channels do people use to get smarter? Newspapers? Books? The web? I think that people who want to get "intellectual stimulus" and information are looking for them everywhere. People who do not look for those two qualities  which we here value seemingly a lot, choose the other offerings the various media do offer - cheap thrill, filling the time, sensations, simply entertainment, confirmation of their prejudice, advice what to buy and what not and so on, the list would never stop. Also the positive side has a long list. The media are just carriers, the content can be so much. So I do not think that we should give up on the media, including the TV. There still are great TV programs around - but it naturally all depends on who can receive them and how.

Besides, are we three (Massimo, you and me) the members of the masses or not? I think we can not escape! We are members of the public in many connections. In some connections we can have privileges given by our education history and our professions, but we still are members of the public in most connections. And "the reality of things" is that "the masses" are looking for something positive. True, in fully commercialized world all this becomes different. Fortunately, there are still other dimensions to our lives than those expressible in dollars.  And in Europe, we still have the public TV channels, who still have to some degree the role in "education for the masses", which they sometimes take seriously.

dorigo's picture
Hi Ladislav,

sure, I was not implying that we should give up TV as a means of communication; rather, I was saying we have to reckon with the fact that the people who sit down in front of a TV screen they do so, in 99% of the cases, not to get information and education, but to get entertainment. So the thing is twofold: one of course does not want to give up _offering_ science and education on TV, but one has to also realize that before one can try and reach those who might listen, one has to most of all train their ears. Thus my conclusion, that an education to Science can only be done in Schools.

Cheers,
T.

Ladislav Kocbach's picture
Dear Tommaso,
Here I can not resist the Wikipedia temptation:
A school (from Greek σχολή (scholē), originally meaning leisure, and also "that in which leisure is employed", "school"), is an institution designed to allow and encourage students (or "pupils") to learn, under the supervision of teachers. (from wikipedia,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School )
Well, the schooling, at least historically, seems to be associated with "leisure", thus also the informal learning. Much of what we know we learned informally. This should according to my opinion not diminish the importance of the schools, but we should not forget the rest of the life.
But good information might also be entertaining! That is supposedly why anybody outside of science wants to read these pages. But we should probably continue this friendly debate somewhere else....

Professor -

The most disturbing base element of your argument is that you don't consider Al Gore a pandering, pseudo-intellectual hypocrite. Mr. Gore belittles and talks down to the common unwashed masses about how poorly we treat the environment while he is chartering private planes, rolling down the highway in over-sized SUV caravans and consuming as much electricity as a small hamlet to light his estate. Spare me your righteous indignation over the fact that Penn & Teller had the fortitude to call Mr. Gore out for his Bullshit!

The common term for someone that acts in this way is "asshole" or you can follow President Obama's lead by categorizing Mr. Gore with Kanye West as a "jack-ass"; however that is degrading to the farm animal. Perhaps the more recently coined term "douche-tard" may be a more accurate definition for Mr. "I-invented-the-internet-&-I'm-greener-than-you" Gore.

Regards.

Gerhard Adam's picture
... and here I thought the point was to consider what was being said, rather than who said it.  By this reasoning, anyone less qualified than Jeremiah Johnson can't have much of an opinion about the environment.

"and here I thought the point was to consider what was being said, rather than who said it."

So because of who he is, he isn't held to any standards? How about directly profiting from the "carbon credits" he is pimping?

http://www.google.com/search?&q=Gore+carbon-credit+company

Yet anyone who dissents from the religion of global warming is a "wingnut"? Seriously?

Gerhard Adam's picture
If you think climate change is simply a political agenda, then that is being foolish.  If you question the veracity of the science, then what is the argument? 

Regardless of what Al Gore says or does, changes nothing regarding the science.  It is either valid or it isn't.  There are plenty of hypocrites everywhere, so no one's hands are clean on that score.

"I admit that it is funny to see P&T in medieval church garments, but really? Do they seriously mean to imply that the two are on the same level?"

Why aren't they the same? Taking people's money and promising something you can't deliver, whether that be eternal salvation or a cooler planet, is downright evil.

And you seem to imply that all climate scientists think anthropogenic global warming will do irreparable damage to the environment. That's completely false. In reality, their views on what's driving climate change and what repercussions will come of it are all over the place. Even though relying on a retired weather man wasn't the wisest of choices, P&T were more correct than you're letting on, Dr. Pigliucci.

The superstition of anthropogenic global warming fuels the biggest con-game of all time - a con-game bilking entire nations, not just individuals. Any time someone wants to sell you a belief, which is exactly what the Al Gore crowd is trying to do, a healthy dose of skepticism is required. And a belief is exactly how it is put: "Don't you believe in global warming?" and the name-calling of skeptics as "global warming deniers," as if they are just too pathetic to face the facts. And the solution the Al Gore's of the world offer is no solution at all. They haven't yet even proved that if, indeed, there really is global warming, that it is a threat rather than either beneficial or neutral. The threat has more or less just been assumed. And the solution to that threat is to tax the world, either directly through "carbon taxes" or indirectly through the regulation of "carbon credits." Some solution.

"And the solution the Al Gore's of the world offer is no solution at all. They haven't yet even proved that if, indeed, there really is global warming, that it is a threat rather than either beneficial or neutral."

I wouldn't want to hang my hat on this bit of nonsense, but is does make sense to ask if it is PRACTICAL to try to prevent warming from getting worse. The evidence that individuals and groups will do something painful in the present to POSSIBLY prevent some AWFUL future event is limited.

How many respond to those with signs, "Repent the End is Near!"

Most of the world is not yet at a state of economic bliss where they are going to support stopping economic growth where they are at today. Not even the USA has reached this state. And, moral lectures about the evils of materialism are NOT going to change anyone's desire for MORE than they've got. Lot's more, if you are one of those who didn't make a killing in the Bush years.

And, the idea that a Green Revolution can replace non-Green activities, while politically popular, is nonsense. First, because cars like the Prius are horrible. An electric toaster on wheels. Only a tiny minority would ever WANT such cars. (Wanting to not spend money on gas is not the same as wanting a Prius.) Secondly, whatever Green technology that will be built is going to be built where everything else is built -- China. With the patents held in Japan. (Americans would do well to stay on top of WHO is filing patents.) The only jobs coming to the rest of the world will be installing" products, which will not be a very high paying job. How much does the Cable Guy make?

With no economic benefit -- and only costs -- in the PRESENT, the logical option is to wait until there are actual problems from warming. Then, there will be no alternative to investing in fixing them. These will be real infra-structure projects costing billions and employing thousands. For example, gates at the bottom of the Hudson. Moving most of LA to outside Vegas.

Nasty warm conditions will spur the development of solutions that folks would never accept now. And, to argue the human race will be unable to solve these problems -- cause it'll be "too late" flys seems a scare tactic worth of one's grandmother. "If you don't eat your beets, you'll ...".

Moreover, by waiting we assure ourselves the data collected is not a fluke. And, we know exactly what needs fixing. Moreover, every decade that passes moves us farther along the technology curve. A solution that we might now reject as "too costly" might be cheap in 20 years. Likewise, something we rush into now, might be inappropriate when seen a decade from now. CAPS is a good example.

One doesn't need to deny Global Warming to resist premature and economy destroying "fixes."

Gerhard Adam's picture
Well, that will certainly be a first.  A problem that will be cheaper to fix after it occurs.  Haven't seen that yet.

Hank's picture
Computer storage and the entire semiconductor industry is an example of a problem cheaper to fix after it occurs.   Shutting down a business today because it isn't perfect and we know there is a train wreck in the future doesn't make a lot of sense.  

Obviously, relying on magical fairytale future science (which will require government funding homerun-ish high risk research the global warming skeptics/Republicans won't want to fund) as an excuse to do nothing in order to stick it to Al Gore isn't smart either.

P&T:Bullshit is on my top 10 favorite shows and there's been very few episodes that I didn't think that they made their case. In Holier than Tho, I didn't think that they made the case against Ghandi (liked to sleep with younger gals? can't see a problem with that since they were consenting adults and the enema thing - well beign clean isn't bad and as for the racism, well, okay, but there's a limit to how much more evolved you can be than your culture).

The green episode was the other one. It is obvious to anyone who's intellectually honest from their own observation that the climate is changing. Yes, the climate has changed before - usually because of volcanos - humans and our framing/industry do put a lot of pollution into the atmosphere and that's gotta be part of the reason

and really, even if we can't stop it, what's wrong with changing our behaviour to slow it down?

but, I did agree that carbon offsets are exactly like indulgences - it's buying permission to do something you shouldn't without any actual accountability for where the money's going.

At least when I joined the cheating offset site, the guy who paid me to be faithful so he could cheat - has my assurance that I am faithful to offset his cheating.

A group specializing in peddling guilt and terrifying you with the approaching apocalypse approaches you with a means of washing away your "sins" by giving money to their corrupt organization. How are carbon credits fundamentally different from indulgences? Maybe next time you could offer a few reasons to back up your arguments instead of self righteous indignation.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.