Robert G. Ingersoll

There's no question that global warming is happening - that has been scientifically established. What has NOT been reasonably or scientifically established is that human activities are directly linked to contributing to such. I would ask you for proof if you disagree.

theyeti

Well, read through the thread I linked to earlier. If you want "proof", then that's not something that's really attainable in science. But I would say there's probably a 90% certainty that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are responsible for the current warming trend. No other forcing agents can account for it. IMO, that's more than enough evidence to warrant doing something about it. If there was a 5% chance that the chef poisoned your dessert, would you eat it?

theyeti

-RRH-

If you think their methods will debunk legit science as well as they debunk pseudoscience, maybe you should object to their methods, rather than their choice of targets.

ksagnostic

"Using undercover operatives, scrupulous research and a healthy dose of skepticism, the Vegas headliners and world-famous magicians blow the lid off popular notions about alien abductions, Ouija boards and end of the world predictions. They expose the bogus science behind such widely accepted canards as creationism, the purity of bottled water, global warming, miracle-workers and religious cults."

I posted a topic on this show earlier. I find the promise of this show interesting, but upon reflection after seeing more previews, I am a little concerned. I think one of the worst faces of the modern skeptics movement (and I consider myself a skeptic) is the "in your faces you deluded fools" message (James Randi being one of the people who immediately comes to mind). The more gentle, thoughtful but still firm presentations of people like the late Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer are likely to be more accepted. Because the experiences people have are real to them. It's one thing to explain to them that there are other, more likely, explanations for what they experienced. It is entirely another thing to make fun of people. Note: I do have a different viewpoint when it comes to deliberate frauds. Then, I consider the Randiescue tactics of stings and disdain to be more appropriate.

However, like theyeti, I really became concerned when I saw Global Warming among the topics to be covered. Global Warming is a legitimate scientific controversy (and the majority professional consensus, btw, is not on the side of the so called skeptics). Even skepticism has its share of bunk, particularly from people who are aggressively advocating a political point of view, or their own scientific biases. Some (scientists as well as others) are not above approaching the skeptic community and accusing advocates of rival viewpoints of being pseudoscientists. I would hope that Penn and Tellar are smart enough to avoid getting involved in some of the pissing matches at the fringes of skepticism. Even when it comes to people who call themselves skeptics, it is important to know something about the people who are making the claim. The Global Warming controversy, with its supply of "skeptics" coming from economic free marketeers and libertarians and energy industry geologists, is an example of a controversy where caution is called for. Other currently occuring "controversies" involving skepticism include...

1) The canard that ADD and ADHD "don't exist", we just need to be more strict with our kids. Among those who advance such a claim are political and religious conservatives who tend to see a world of people who have turned their backs on traditional roles, and who claim victimization.

2) Gender differences (with "skeptics" coming from both those who would dismiss any difference and those who would exaggerate differences).

3) The "all psychotherapy is bunk" controversy. Advanced by those who are looking for ways to reduce health care costs, as well as strict behaviorists who are uncomfortable with the messiness that cognitive or neurodevelopmental approaches bring.

Certainly, the people involved in the above points of view are real adept at detecting the bullshit in opposing points of view, but do not apply such skepticism to their own POV. It is important for someone whose agenda is to get an unbiased as possible view of an issue to know where people, including those who call themselves skeptics, are coming from. Most people have an agenda.

I hope that Penn and Teller do not turn out to be another John Stossel.

Skepticism is important and vital as a movement and antidote to pseudoscience and quackery. It should not be ruined by politicalization and "pissing in the punchbowl curmudgeons".

HaysooChreesto!

And therein lies the rub. There's much hullabaloo made by both sides in the global warming issue from hysterical "we're wiping out the planet" to outright denial by those who say all of it's complete hogwash. And then there's the rest who lie somewhere in between. The common thread among all of the advocacy groups in all this is funding $'s. They all have vested reasons to argue their side of things.

I find the types who want to cut back production and development to be the most dangerous of the group due to the economic disaster it would create. The idea of breathing crystal clean air from a cave is somehow not too appealing to me.

I think that less pollution is always a good thing, but surely it's not unreasonable to want clearly observable evidence that it's killing us when the lifespans of inhabitants of modern nations say otherwise (I hope that makes sense).