From half of the same team that brought you this classic video of di-hydrogen monoxide:
Climate change? Once more, ‘I don’t know’
By Penn Jillette
July 3, 2008
From: The Los Angeles Times
My partner, Teller, and I are professional skeptics. We do magic tricks in our live show in Las Vegas, and we have a passion for trying to use what we’ve learned about fooling people to possibly get a little closer to the truth. Our series on Showtime tries to question everything — even things we hold dear.
James Randi is our inspiration, our hero, our mentor and our friend. Randi taught us to use our fake magic powers for good. Psychics use tricks to lie to people; Randi uses tricks to tell the truth.
Every year, in Vegas, the James Randi Educational Foundation gathers together for a conference as many like-thinking participants as you can get from people who question whenever people think alike. There are smart, famous and groovy speakers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. There’s lots of real science stuff with real scientists questioning things that a lot of people take for granted, like ESP, UFOs, faith healing and creationism. It’s a party.
Teller and I are always honored to be invited. We don’t wear our usual matching gray suits, and Teller doesn’t stay in his silent character. Teller chats up a storm. It’s not a gig; it’s hanging out with friends. During our loose Q&A period this year, someone asked us about global warming, or climate change, or however they’re branding it now. Teller and I were both silent on stage for a bit too long, and then I said I didn’t know.
I elaborated on “I don’t know” quite a bit. I said that Al Gore was so annoying (that’s scientifically provable, right?) that I really wanted to doubt anything he was hyping, but I just didn’t know. I also emphasized that really smart friends, who knew a lot more than me, were convinced of global warming. I ended my long-winded rambling (I most often have a silent partner) very clearly with “I don’t know.” I did that because … I don’t know. Teller chimed in with something about Gore’s selling of “indulgences” being BS, and then said he didn’t know either. Penn & Teller don’t know jack about global warming … next question.
The next day, I heard that one of the non-famous, non-groovy, non-scientist speakers had used me as an example of someone who let his emotions make him believe things that are wrong. OK. People who aren’t used to public speaking get excited and go off half-cocked. I’m used to public speaking and I go off half-cocked. I live half-cocked. Cut her some slack.
Later, I was asked about a Newsweek blog she wrote. Reading it bugged me more than hearing about it. She ends with: “But here was Penn, a great friend to the skeptic community, basically saying, ‘Don’t bother me with scientific evidence, I’m going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore.’ … Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things.”
Is there no ignorance allowed on this one subject? I took my children to see the film “Wall-E.” This wonderful family entertainment opens with the given that mankind destroyed Earth. You can’t turn on the TV without seeing someone hating ourselves for what we’ve done to the planet and preaching the end of the world. Maybe they’re right, but is there no room for “maybe”? There’s a lot of evidence, but global warming encompasses a lot of complicated points: Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?
To be fair (and it’s always important to be fair when one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous), “I don’t know” can be a very bad answer when it is disingenuous. You can’t answer “I don’t know if that happened” about the Holocaust.
But the climate of the whole world is more complicated. I’m not a scientist, and I haven’t spent my life studying weather. I’m trying to learn what I can, and while I’m working on it, isn’t it OK to say “I don’t know”?
I mean, at least in front of a bunch of friendly skeptics?
Penn Jillette is the louder, bigger half of the magic/comedy team of Penn & Teller.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t like to see my faith ridiculed by P &T. Who are they? I also don’t like to see the reasoning of Dawkins placed above my faith. Evolution is based on similar reasoning and evidence as dark matter, dark energy, and global warming. As a Christian I see these teachers such as the ones who should be lumped in with holocaust deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorist, UFO searchers, etc. Oh, I forgot bigfoot.
Reason is broken. We don’t think right. We confuse correlation with causality; substitute analogy for demonstration; description for definition. Then we bash the next guy for doing the same.
Christ is risen. No man comes to the Father except by Him. There is far more evidence for this than all of the above.
Talk about uninformed! Obviously Dawkins either didn’t take the time to educate himself that the supervisors of elections that Al Gore hauled into court were Democrats, or he just knowingly perpetrated a lie. If he wasn’t able to pick up on the errors in Al Gore’s film, how can he call himself a scientist?
When I see such slipshod work outside of a person’s area of expertise, I question the quality of work inside his area of expertise as well.
I don’t like to see my faith ridiculed by P &T. Who are they?
Perhaps your “faith” isn’t as strong as you’d like it to be then, if you feel it is threatened by a comedy act, Grant.
Christ is risen. No man comes to the Father except by Him. There is far more evidence for this than all of the above.
Puh-leeeze, spare us. If we want to preached at, we’ll go to church. Religion and science just don’t mix.
Speaking of Carl Sagan and climate change, I came across the little 1990 SNL gem of Mike Myers parodying a “Carl Sagan Global Warming Christmas Special”.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/71374/
Sagan was one of the earliest voices arguing that AGW was a serious problem, much of which arose out of his pioneering work on the composition and characteristics of the atmosphere of Venus.
Swampie-yes, he is being ridiculously naive. First of all, as you point out, it was the blue counties that screwed up. Second, the recounts have quietly been done-NYT, and others, have proven that Bush legitimately won the 2000 election.
Personally, I don’t see Athiests like Dawkins as “skeptics”-the simply out right deny the existence of God-which requires a leap of faith in and of itself. More disturbing however is the attempt turn evolutionary biology into a whole, metaphysical religion. It is also quite obvious that many of them deny religion becuase they wish to undermine traditional morality becuase of their liberal views. I can respect that they feel the way they do, but their presentation of their antireligious polemics is highly misleading.
If Phil is so impressed by Dawkin’s logic, he may wish to know that his friends have been having rings run around them in debates with Dinesh D’Souza. You can watch him debate Christopher Hitchens:
http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/lectureplayer.aspx?file=v000187_cicero_102207.flv
Penn and Teller are very funny IMHO, and I and am glad that Penn is trying to keep a level head and open mind about AGW. This goes to show what happens when libertarian Athiests say something to upset their more liberal Athiest friends.
As to Sagan whom I respected and admired, he was not infallible either. His ‘nuclear winter’ hypothethis and his political opposition to war led him to predict dire climate consequences to Saddam burning the oil fields prior to the Gulf War in ’92. Saddam burned most of them and what happened? Nada.
Or maybe now we know why temperatures haven’t been rising the last decade or so! 🙂
Point being, a scientist’s politics in this case as in others may lead to making dire predictions that are not supported by the facts. Scientists are human beings, not Spock-like beings.
[…] (Hat tip, still and all, to Anthony Watts.) […]
The problem with Dawkins (whom I used to read voraciously) is that once he took a theological stand he became so confident that he is gullible. If something aligns with his worldview, he has very little interest in questioning it.
Dawkins wasn never fundamentally skeptical, he was just smart and thought that he was right about a few controversial issues. (many of which he was right about, imo)
Penn Jillette is so reflexively skeptical that he does not fall into that trap. If the evidence emerged that Jesus Christ was really risen, walking around, and promoting homeopathic colonic recycling, Penn would reconsider his positions. Richard Dawkins never would.
(Matt Stone and Trey Parker wouldn’t care much either way, but they would get some great episodes out of it.)
So even one can’t even say “I don’t know” without being accused of AGW heresy?
when someone tells me that Dawkins is “reasonable” and “logical” i question their ability to understand basic philosophical reasoning. in college my best friend began to read Dawkins to give him a fair reading and he would literally laugh out loud as he read different passages to me. i couldn’t believe that Dawkins was considered respectable by anyone with half a brain……but then again, my major was philosophy so i have a bit of an advantage in spotting shoddy reasoning. dawkins is slick….he is eloquent……he is british……other than that, he is an embarrassment. i have even seen other atheists distancing themselves from him……
This post and the accompanying comments highlight a phenomenon that I first noticed back in the 60’s and which has gotten nothing but worse ever since. The problem is a growing number of people, probably a significant majority at this point, can no longer differentiate between the meaning of saying I know or saying I believe. In most cases I believe is an adequate substitute for I know, but in the modern parlance I know has fairly much obliterated I believe, much to the detriment of any kind of rational discourse.
Yuck.
Next time Penn can add that he’s generally skeptical of beliefs that demand obedience rather than persuading with evidence.
Re: “20 years…”
Can someone point me in the direction of the data you’re all apparently looking at? The data I usually look at (the atmospheric satellite data) looks like there’s substantial warming from 1988-1998, and no rise from 1999-2008. But there really does look to be about a 0.2 degree (centigrade) rise from 1988 to 2008 (or basically from anywhere in the ’80’s to anywhere post-2000).
In fact, that data appears on this very web site, if you scroll down to July 3rd….
I usually say the data has been flat for the last decade, but I wouldn’t say it’s been flat for 20 years.
What am I missing?
Let’s end the religion and science commentary please, I have nothing against either, but they are way off topic.
But there really does look to be about a 0.2 degree (centigrade) rise from 1988 to 2008 (or basically from anywhere in the ’80’s to anywhere post-2000).
Yes. The point was that at the precise time Hansen made his speech (July 1988 ) was an upswing and the precise time he made it this year, the temperatures are on a downswing. The result is that when he actually made the first speech, it was warmer than when he actually made the second speech.
The overall first-order flat trend, however, over the entire 20 years was, as you say, c. 0.2C to the warm.
It’s really a shame that Richard Feynman isn’t around to comment on the whole CAGW brouhaha.
Anyway, I’m an attorney and I’m a “denier.” People lie to me all day long and CAGW has all the red flags of a hoax. I’ve studied the “science” carefully and satisfied myself of this.
When you cut through all the BS, the only evidence for the CAGW hypothesis is that it’s possible to construct a computer simulation which is (1) consistent with some aspects of climate history; and (2) consistent with future CAGW. A very slender reed.
I have a few questions if anyone could help me:
I under stand that there is around 0.04% CO2 in our atmosphere. What do AGWers believe is the correct amount?
Glaciers – why are they melting and when did it start. Was there not a period when there were none? Same for the ice-caps (Polar ones)
Is CO2 not vital to plant growth (aka the Kalvin cycle)
I agree with you on Skeptic.com and have given up on them. Being a skeptic makes it hard for me to take them seriously when they seem so entrenched.
The only vote I feel I have is my buck. Get the feeling the Economist magazine is Pro- AGW too.
Many thanks for this website. I feel I have been alone with my wits and confidence challenged too often by the licenced media and friends(with no science training).
You don’t have to be a skeptic to be a d-bag. All of the people Penn proudly mentions as conference attendees also strongly believed that Saddam had WMDs (Hitchens still does), and very often “skepticism” is a code word for libertarianism, which is itself a euphemism for crippling the power of government to make people’s lives better by protecting them from massive d-bags, while insisting that government start foreign wars. Parker and Stone’s movie Team America lays it out when the protagonist [moderator censored for profanity~Charles the moderator]
http://stuffwhitedbagslike.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/dictionary-of-national-d-bags-penn-jillette/
I haven’t read all the comments (far too numerous) but I would like to back-up Penn’s premise that it *is* OK to say “I don’t know”, if that is the case. It is not foolish, it’s honest.
However, I too used to say “I don’t know” about AGW, until I became frustrated by my lack of knowledge. So I did what we all should do; research! It isn’t hard now we have the internet. One link lead to another, new contacts would send me to other sources of information. And so I found out that AGW is an unproven hypothesis with no empirical scientific evidence to back it up.
Am I mad about the AGW hype and lies? You bet I am!
Sue.
chunque-
Not to completely derail the discussion, but does it bother you that we just got 550 tons of uranium ore safely out of Iraq and into Canada? (link)
That’s 550 TONS.
Containing enough U-235 to construct about 70 atomic bombs (550,000 kg * 0.0072 (isotopic fraction) / 57 kg (critical mass)).
No, no.
Clearly, believing that Saddam Hussein was trying to build a nuclear weapon is an embarassingly silly view.
Clint,
That stash of yellow cake was known to exist for decades and had been verified by UN inspectors to be in Iraq. This yellow cake was there and was part of the shut-down operation completed by UN inspectors prior to the lead-up to the invasion. After the invasion, it was guarded by troops till it could be safely removed. And by the way, it can’t be used in dirty bombs other than a scare tactic and it has to be enriched in order to be used as a high grade product in nuclear programs (either bombs or reactors). Troops were not looking for this stuff in their search for WMD’s. They already knew about it.
Or they moved to an already searched area while the search was ongoing…
Randi’s not that bad. I’ve had personal correspondence with him in the last year, and he’s hardly an AGW acolyte. He could rightly say “I don’t know”, since he takes the word of his friend Phil Plait (Bad Astronomy..) for it.
Talk about narrow vision. That’s like looking only at one day’s data and saying “OMG! It’s getting hotter as we approach noon! Quick! Destroy all the clocks before we fry!” It completely ignores all the ups and downs in temperatures and climate events throughout history and calls a small snapshot in time “unprecedented”.
It’s also due to erosion of the protective reefs due to construction. The islanders have created their own problem.
Thanks Bruce, my thoughts exactly. Trading one fairy tale for another isn’t the answer.