.

March 29, 2007

Penn & Teller on Environmental Hysteria "Bullshit": A Response

Someone sent me this program and after watching it, I sent back the following comments...

BTW: there is some language in here that some may find objectionable, it's from cable, what can I say?


As usual, Penn & Teller do what they do on this show, go to extreme opposites and present it as a complete picture. What makes the show worth watching is that you get both sides, though they tend to be a bit extreme on their presentations, fortunately the truth is rarely neither side, but somewhere in between.

The show also tends to skew their story for whatever position they are in support for, not that different than Michael Moore, though at least Michael is honest about what position he is taking. Here are a few examples of where their presented "facts" and proofs are in dispute (for size and time, I stopped the commentary after the first 10 minutes of the show).
  • Patrick Moore -- Ecologist
    1. Moore is paid by the British Columbia Forest Alliance: an (accused) industry-front group set up by public relations firm Burson-Marsteller (the same PR firm that represented Exxon after the Valdez oil spill and Union Carbide after the Bhopal chemical disaster). The BC Forest Alliance is funded primarily by the logging industry.
    2. Large openings do occur naturally in some forest ecosystems, but not with any frequency in coastal temperate rainforest. Furthermore, clearcuts remove a considerable amount of the biomass, whereas natural openings caused by wind leave all the bio-mass on site and openings caused by fire leave 20% to70% of the biomass on site.
    3. There are many other statements that he is known for that are of questionable scientific integrity.
  • Some one comments, "their [Corporations] bottom line is how much money is in the bank by the end of the day." to which Penn comments that is the definition of "bottom line, moron." In context, what she is referring to is what's most important to them, not a financial definition as she clarifies immediately after when the rest of her statement is played.
    • People forget the Corporations have one and only one fiduciary responsibility at the end of the day, to make profit for the shareholders, being a good or responsible neighbor is not in the equation since this responsibility is in the short term and tends not to see the long term in many cases.
  • I can't help but wonder how many students and protesters they had to interview to find this motley collection of speakers who don't come across as that bright.
  • As far as the Dihydrogen Monoxide petition:
    1. These kinds of rallies are not exactly brain trusts and the descriptions that the petition taker is full of reaction-causing terms in an grouping as this one. Far from what would be considered a scientific survey with it's targeted phrasing of the uses of H2O. The questioning and arguments were specifically targeted to elicit a response in one direction, not exactly an impartial sampling. Penn even states this is the case by saying it would be using the terminology of "environmental hysteria."
    2. How many people signed it verses how many didn't? Since they don't give us any numbers, it's not possible to make any conclusions except that there were at least some gullible people out there.
  • Rainforest Action Network (RAN)
    I don't know the specifics of this organization, but from a cursory look at their website, I think their "representation" was poor to say the least and while the website uses all the "buzz" words, their main goals seem to be reasonable:
    • Global Finance:
      • "...works to redirect the global economic system away from environmentally and socially destructive activities and into clean, sustainable, and socially just alternatives."
      • "...create an imperative for concerned citizens to demand an end to destructive investments from the world’s largest financial institutions and help to chart a new course towards a sane and sustainable global economy."
    • Old Growth Forest Preservation:
      • "...works to protect endangered forests, promote sustainable and democratic economies and protect indigenous rights."
    • Freedom From Oil:
      • "...working to end America’s oil dependence, reduce oil related conflicts, and stop global climate change by convincing the auto industry to dramatically improve fuel efficiency and eliminate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions."
  • Penn: "No one can agree on what causes Global Warming or even how bad it is, there are some that say that it's not happening at all."
    • Interesting that Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" mentions the very same thing. I'm not going to pull it out and get an exact quote, but he says that out of a fair and random sample of the scientific peer-reviewed literature, there was somewhere near complete support for the idea of global warming. It was only in the corporate owned media that the debate came down to around 50% agreement. So, the scientists appear to be in predominant agreement, but the corporations that don't want change show a different picture, makes me think of Upton Sinclair's line: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." (It is amazing how much of the world around me falls into this in one way or another)
  • Ross Gelbspan - Journalist:
    1. Has written 2 books on the subject of global warming, "The Heat is On: The High Stakes Battle Over Earth's Threatened Climate" and "Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Are Fueling the Climate Crisis—and What We Can Do to Avoid Disaster"
    2. General information is that he believes in a concerted effort between government and business to keep things as is and fight any changes in energy or fossil fuel usage or technologies. While he does come off as a bit of an alarmist, I can't fault a man for being passionate.
    3. Strange that the only real complaint about the guy I found in a cursory look on Google was an article calling into question if he could use the phrase "Pulitzer Prize winning" since a series of articles that he participated as an editor won but he wasn't a writer specifically.
The Point:

From my perspective the whole argument true or not is something of a Mass Distraction. I happen to believe that the evidence that I have found and read myself supports the idea that the planet is going through a warming trend and that it is quite likely that it is related to the burning of fossil fuels and the release of large amounts or CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gasses."

Agree with me or not is not important, but there are 3 questions that are imperative to ask;
  1. Oil and Coal, though fairly abundant at this time, are limited resources and will eventually run out, if these corporations that are accused by some of being resistant to changing their business wish to be profitable when that happens, wouldn't it be prudent for them to be looking into alternatives so they can continue being profitable when their market is harvested out? (or is my conspiracy theory friend right when he says they [corporations and government] intend to reap the benefits of an inverse function of supply and demand by reaping higher and higher profits as demand increases on diminishing supplies?)
  2. What sense is there in pouring toxins into the atmosphere that we all depend upon? Other than it is likely cheaper and easier to use centuries old technologies than to find cleaner alternatives, even my cat has more sense than to defecate in his food dish.
  3. Are we making a planet that we would (or could) live on in 100 or 1000 years if we continue the path we are on? What we do or don't do today will have repercussions on the children of today and beyond, are we making a place they would be happy to live in, judged by quality of life, not quantity of "things"?
At least the title tells you their specific perspective, and I would agree that hysteria is not helpful, but neither is ignoring what may or may not, depending on perspective, be a looming problem.

Oh, one last thing after the 10 minutes into the show, I don't know of anyone other than the conservative minded that would call the CATO Institute a "libertarian" think-tank. They tend to be more "traditionally conservative" (as compared to neo-conservative) than otherwise.


PS
I know someone will accuse me of being anti-corporation, not at all. I do think that if corporations want the legal rights and privileges to match that of common citizens, they should also be held to the same level of controls within the common-welfare. The pursuit of the all-mighty dollar shouldn't be a valid excuse for the wanton destruction of everything else around it. The fact is that it may be necessary for corporations to make less profit today if the wish to still be financially viable tomorrow.

March 26, 2007

The Law of (Negative) Attraction

The other day, I was talking to someone about the Law of Attraction and “The Secret”. In particular, what it is and how I have been using it in my life. They asked me an interesting question, “Why is it that everyone who tells me about 'The Secret' only talks about the positive, doesn’t it work in the negative as well?”

At the time I took the question to be in the vein of a “don’t want” like an Anti-War protest to end war. I explained that the universe tends to be a bit dense in this area as it does not understand the concept of “No” and “Not”. I explained that the universe gives us what we focus upon and does not understand why would spend our energy, time & thought on something we did not want.

Later I started to think about the question again and realized they may have been asking about an example of the universe manifesting something I did not want. Right now in my life, I have a wonderful example of this in action.

On my job, I have a boss that I love to death, but sometimes, I would not be to upset if he just disappeared into the ether on his own volition. It is not that he is a bad person or evil in any way, but several of his habits in business work to my detriment in many ways. Someone once said “That which you resist, persists.” This is definitely showing itself in my life…

I am not going to go into details, because they are not important to the discussion, but let us just say that I have been fighting with them so much that they have become nearly toxic for me. Is this his fault? Well, it would be easy to say yes, but the truth is that I am quite aware of the fact that he can only annoy me as much as I let him. The truth is that whatever he may be, only I can be annoyed (OK, read infuriated at times) with him and if I wish it to cease and desist, I just need to stop trying to bend him to my will.

Now this has not necessarily been a bad thing, which is something we learn in time. As much as it has been inharmonious in my day-to-day existence, it has also been of help in that it has helped push me out of what would otherwise be a very nice “comfort” zone and back into the world of self-employment. James Redfield, in his “Celestine Prophecy”, makes the comment in one of his insights that we become aware of the positive aspect in everything that happens to us. For me, that lining is continuing on my journey to self-fulfillment and pursuit of my dreams. In addition, even my boss’s annoying behaviors might just be worth it if I make something good out of it, as someone once wrote, “If life hands you lemons, make lemonade!”

March 4, 2007

Why Religions Hate?

The other day, I received a response from Rev. Don Spitz who was not happy about my previous entry where I mentioned the "Army of God." I put down a bit of a flippant comment of my own to his, but I did go check out his blog and see what he has to say.

There is currently just one entry where he has a single entry where he expresses his disgust for PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals ). They seem to have a couple of campaigns where they use a bit of tongue in cheek humor to put forth the idea that we should not eat meat which he feels is worshipping the created over the creator by quoting:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Romans 1:25(KJV)
Cute choice since the verse is talking about the people who worship animal forms as gods as in idols and such forms. He seems to think that to respect life is to disrespect God. Sad...

After reading the entry and the article it points to, on the Army of God website, I sent him the following comment:

I am sure you found my blog by searching for the, oh so Christian, "Army of God" reference in my latest entry. Other than throwing accusations that I am refusing Jesus, based on what? I have no clue... I may not agree with your theologies, interpretations and dogmas, but I have no denial of Jesus, just the deified idol that people like yourself have turned him into.

As far as the Army of God is concerned, do you really think killing abortionists is any morally higher than being a "baby killer" yourself? Personally, I think it just makes you sound like a complete hypocrite, one reason to kill is immoral, but your reasoning is an acceptable reason... NOT!!!

In the context of the entry that you commented on: I do believe that Radical Christianity, such as groups like yours, are far more dangerous to this country than Radical Islam, which was the question (“Do you believe that Radical Islam is any threat to the world or us?”).

Your PETA complaints regarding their ads show that you are definitely in need of cultivating a sense of humor. I bet Jesus would have found them quite cute and humorous. Strange that his wrath in the Gospels was always aimed at people like yourself, Pharisees and Sadducees, who are so full of themselves and their holiness, that they had forgotten the spirit of the law for the letter (which brings death, if I remember correctly).

I am sure you mean well, but I will pray that some love for your fellow man might work its way into your heart sometime. If Jesus is nothing but a validation to justify your sense of superiority and judgment, I feel sorry for you.
Sadly, to many people the Reverend, and those like him, are what they believe Christianity is about. The word Christian means to be Christlike. Unfortunately, to most who use this title, it has become a badge of their superiority over their neighbors and others.

Why must we use God and religion to tear ourselves apart? The word religion originally meant "to bind fast" as in the "bond between humans and gods." Some have defined Religion as originally meaning "to re-link with God." I have always been tickled that the word "yoga" is Sanskrit for basically the same thing, "to join God."


I tend to be tough on Religions and Religionists since they have a tendency of turning religion into a justification for self-superiority and degradation of their fellow people, or worse; the local social club. Where this seems to have come in is via personal ego. When we follow one religious path or another, we tend to say "We have THE Truth" instead of saying, more properly, "We have an expression of the Truth." I have spent nearly two decades studying the scripture and teachings from as many religions as I can get my hands on, and after a while, you see direct correlations between them all. Religion is like a well cut diamond, each facet is another expression of the whole, no single facet entails the whole. When used properly, diamonds can be useful and beautiful, misused it can hurt, damage and in some cases even kill.

When we realize that we are all not separate, but part and parcel of God, that we are all encompassed by the totality of God, we loose the need to be in a seat of judgement over our neighbors. If you believe in the supremacy of and the omnipotence of God, the idea includes that God must be able to determine His/Her will and doesn't need us to go around killing our fellow humans, physically of spiritually.
 

.