Going green is Bullshit?

[big_bad_buff]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8147337841241405073

yes global warming caused by man is totaly BS, it just shows how stupid and gullible humans are...sure, keep the world clean, stop littering...the end

 

[javaguru]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8147337841241405073

yes global warming caused by man is totaly BS, it just shows how stupid and gullible humans are...sure, keep the world clean, stop littering...the end

Based on the evidence, humans do have an impact but as in most things we exaggerate our importance in the ecosystem. The ecological impact of humans today Vs. three hundred years ago has increased exponentially but we can't rival nature.

 

[inkspot]

They actually debunk that in the vids....

I'll call you on this one. I had to look up Penn & Teller. Shocking I know. Who would have thought famous magicians could turn into foul mouthed wanna be debunkers. Sitting through 30 mins of Penn was grueling.

Here is an excerpt taken from wikipedia:

Penn & Teller "Bullshit"

Allegations (and acknowledgement) of bias

Many critics accuse Penn and Teller of being biased in their approach to debunking their opponents' arguments. For example, Chaz Miller, who was interviewed for the "Recycling" episode, said that Bullshit! attempts to exclude certain information if it does not favor the show's position. Some of these claims do not go without rebuttal: the Recycling episode does mention information on beneficial recycling though, specifically that recycling aluminum cans and other metals is in fact beneficial.


While Penn and Teller are self-professed skeptics, critics have been quick to note that Bullshit! is not dedicated to fact-based debunking or inquiry. An otherwise favorable review by The Onion A.V. Club noted:

Bullshit! isn't journalism, exactly. The show is one-sided by design: P&T's field interviewers rarely confront their subjects with the evidence against them, preferring to let the crackpots ramble on so that Jillette's voiceover rejoinders can score points without inciting a real argument.

Recycling

The myth-busting website De-Fact-o.com has criticized Penn & Teller's source on paper recycling (Daniel K. Benjamin, "Eight Great Myths of Recycling"), saying that Benjamin relied on outdated studies to make some of his claims.[16]

 

[javaguru]

I'll call you on this one. I had to look up Penn & Teller. Shocking I know. Who would have thought famous magicians could turn into foul mouthed wanna be debunkers. Sitting through 30 mins of Penn was grueling.

Here is an excerpt taken from wikipedia:

Penn & Teller "Bullshit"

Allegations (and acknowledgement) of bias

Many critics accuse Penn and Teller of being biased in their approach to debunking their opponents' arguments. For example, Chaz Miller, who was interviewed for the "Recycling" episode, said that Bullshit! attempts to exclude certain information if it does not favor the show's position. Some of these claims do not go without rebuttal: the Recycling episode does mention information on beneficial recycling though, specifically that recycling aluminum cans and other metals is in fact beneficial.


While Penn and Teller are self-professed skeptics, critics have been quick to note that Bullshit! is not dedicated to fact-based debunking or inquiry. An otherwise favorable review by The Onion A.V. Club noted:

Bullshit! isn't journalism, exactly. The show is one-sided by design: P&T's field interviewers rarely confront their subjects with the evidence against them, preferring to let the crackpots ramble on so that Jillette's voiceover rejoinders can score points without inciting a real argument.

Recycling

The myth-busting website De-Fact-o.com has criticized Penn & Teller's source on paper recycling (Daniel K. Benjamin, "Eight Great Myths of Recycling"), saying that Benjamin relied on outdated studies to make some of his claims.[16]

So where in your argument are we running out of landfill space? Just sayin'

 

[javaguru]

I'll call you on this one. I had to look up Penn & Teller. Shocking I know. Who would have thought famous magicians could turn into foul mouthed wanna be debunkers. Sitting through 30 mins of Penn was grueling.

Here is an excerpt taken from wikipedia:

Penn & Teller "Bullshit"

Allegations (and acknowledgement) of bias

Many critics accuse Penn and Teller of being biased in their approach to debunking their opponents' arguments. For example, Chaz Miller, who was interviewed for the "Recycling" episode, said that Bullshit! attempts to exclude certain information if it does not favor the show's position. Some of these claims do not go without rebuttal: the Recycling episode does mention information on beneficial recycling though, specifically that recycling aluminum cans and other metals is in fact beneficial.


While Penn and Teller are self-professed skeptics, critics have been quick to note that Bullshit! is not dedicated to fact-based debunking or inquiry. An otherwise favorable review by The Onion A.V. Club noted:

Bullshit! isn't journalism, exactly. The show is one-sided by design: P&T's field interviewers rarely confront their subjects with the evidence against them, preferring to let the crackpots ramble on so that Jillette's voiceover rejoinders can score points without inciting a real argument.

Recycling

The myth-busting website De-Fact-o.com has criticized Penn & Teller's source on paper recycling (Daniel K. Benjamin, "Eight Great Myths of Recycling"), saying that Benjamin relied on outdated studies to make some of his claims.[16]

Honestly, what was factually incorrect?

 

[javaguru]

Honestly, what was factually incorrect?

Just sayin' we have a shitload of unused space for trash and nuclear waste ...what is factually incorrect?

 

[inkspot]

So where in your argument are we running out of landfill space? Just sayin'

I don't believe I made a comment on landfills except to thank you for your contributions. Let's face it, landfills will always be needed. We are a throw away society. All I'm sayin' is if we all do something it is better than doing nothing.

 

[inkspot]

Honestly, what was factually incorrect?

well one point it seemed Penn was trying to make was recycling paper was bad for the trees. And yet the same trees are raised for paper specifically. We're not talking about redwoods which imo should be saved.

 

[javaguru]

well one point it seemed Penn was trying to make was recycling paper was bad for the trees. And yet the same trees are raised for paper specifically. We're not talking about redwoods which imo should be saved.

He pointed out we have more trees in the US than we did in the 1920's due to the fact they have an economic value. As far as redwoods being "better" than other trees, you some kind of tree racist?

 

[PICK3]

He pointed out we have more trees in the US than we did in the 1920's due to the fact they have an economic value. As far as redwoods being "better" than other trees, you some kind of tree racist?

Are you dendrologically biased?