And check out some of their other episodes of Bullshit! I watched a bunch of them last night. The ones on recycling and environmentalism were particularly good (and eye-opening).
There’s a bunch of them on Google Video. Even one on “Stupid 9-11 Conspiracies,” “Alien Abduction,” and the PETA.
NOTE — The one entitled “Alien Abduction” on Google Video is actually about profanity.
5 responses so far ↓
1 nonesuch // Nov 19, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Saw this on Greylodge a while back and watched as the comment box filled up with people that were very offended by it. Strange.
2 Fell the Don // Nov 20, 2006 at 5:05 pm
People don’t like having their versions of reality mucked around with. Doesn’t matter if your an occultist, conspiracy theorist, or Tory. Republican. Whatever.
I usually have the most fun when I can find people that genuinely make me question my version of the truth. Speaking of which, I’ve been meaning to read Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
3 Klintron // Nov 21, 2006 at 1:47 am
From my comment over at GPod:
What, one can’t agree with someone about somethings, and disagree about others?
Anyway, a few quick thoughts on the episodes I’ve watched (Recycling and Environmentalism):
Neither show seemed to spend much time talking to scientists on either side of the argument- instead they talked to activists, lobbyists, pundits, and beaurocrats.
On recycling (which they make a much better case against than environmentalism, imho):
What other costs must be considered, other than the relative costs of recycling or landfilling?
How much petroleum (regardless of the cost) does it take to make a water bottle vs. how much it takes to recycle it?
Although we might not be running out of landfill land, what other uses could this land be used for?
Methane gas is created by the decomposing of organic materials - not by plastic, glass, etc. These are things that would be in the landfill regardless of recycling, right?
Speaking of glass, what are the costs of recylcing it?
What about recycling electronics (a la freegeek.org)
One of the primary sources for the environmental episode is the libertarian think tank that, according to Wikipedia (perhaps not the best source, but it’ll do in a pinch) is funded by: “Scaife Foundations, ExxonMobil, the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation.” Do you think they might have ulterior motives for their positions?
On the environmentalism episode:
They do a good job at demonstrating the falty thinking of many environmentalists (we need to do better!).
Are Patrick Moore and the CATO Institute really credible sources for environmental information?
Why didn’t they ever talk to anyone from Greenpeace (who still worked there)?
Although people are questioned about whether there are environmentally acceptable forms of logging, none are actually mentioned.
They say there are more trees in the world now than in 1920. How old are these trees, where are they, and what ecological role do they play?
What evidence is there to support or debunk claims of an impending global water crisis?
4 Klintron // Nov 21, 2006 at 2:11 am
Also, is Bjørn Lomborg really a credible expert? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_environmentalist
Leave a Comment