Help
Sign In
bill maher
December 2009 
Global Warming Skeptics Cause Cognitive Dissonance
~C4Chaos
(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)
Scott Adams tipped me to an episode of Bill Maher's Realtime wherein one of the topics was Global Warming. See transcript of the show here. Below is the video.
In the program, Bjorn Lomborg, author of the book Cool It - The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, was interviewed about his views on global warming and the environment. I think he expressed a balanced and practical stance on environmental issues, but apparently, Bill Maher and his other guests (Rob Thomas, Salman Rushdie) didn't get what he said. Here's an excerpt of what Lomborg actually said:
"LOMBORG: It certainly is. And that’s also why I say we need to start thinking smartly about how we deal with climate change. Right now, we talk a lot, and we say, let’s do the Kyoto Protocol, which costs a lot of money; we actually don’t implement, and then even if we did, would do very little good. I’m saying we need to get off this argument of saying, “we want to cut right now.” It makes us feel good, but it does very little good. Instead, we should focus on cutting the cost of cutting emissions. That is, invest in research and development on non-carbon-emitting energy technologies.
"Basically, to give you the point – it’s a metaphor, but obviously it really holds the main point – right now, solar panels cost about ten times the amount of fossil fuels. That means that rich people in rich countries will put up some, you know, mainly on sloping roofs, to show their neighbors how good they are. But, poor people in rich countries are not going to do it, and certainly China and India are not going to do it, because they have much more important priorities like feeding their population or curing their kids from infectious diseases.
"And so what I want to make sure is that we focus on research and development so this becomes much cheaper, so that solar panels become competitive with fossil fuels. That way, we not only leave better opportunities for our kids and grandkids, but also for the Chinese and the Indians."That's a very good argument in my book. That is a common argument from global warming skeptics like Michael Crichton. And what does Rob Thomas, Salman Rushdie, and Bill Maher have to say about it?
"THOMAS: I – he just fucking confused the shit out of me. [laughter] I have no idea what he just said."
"RUSHDIE: I’ll tell you, what I heard was, “There is no connection between smoking and lung cancer.... And what we need is – what we need is a lot more research... And we’ll pay for 20 years of it while we go on selling you the cigarettes.”
"MAHER: And I worry that some – you know, that 20 years later, this guy is going to say, “You know what? Yeah, there is global warming.” Because there seems to be this trend in this country of people not speaking out at the moment when they can affect change."
Scott Adams referred to their (Maher, Thomas, Rushdie) reactions as a best case example of "cognitive dissonance." Adams posted an excellent analysis on his blog. See On the Other Hand.
"The primary skill of an economist is identifying all of the explanations for various phenomena. Cognitive dissonance is, at its core, the inability to recognize and accept other explanations. I’m oversimplifying, but you get the point. The more your brain is trained for economics, the less it is susceptible to cognitive dissonance, or so it seems.
"The joke about economists is that they are always using the phrase “On the other hand.” Economists are trained to recognize all sides of an argument. That seems like an easy and obvious skill, but in my experience, the general population lacks that skill. Once people take a side, they interpret any argument on the other side as absurd. In other words, they are relatively susceptible to cognitive dissonance.
"Recently I saw the best case of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. It was on Bill Maher's show, Real Time, which I love. Bill was interviewing Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, who has a book about global warming, called "Cool It." The economist made the following points clearly and succinctly:"
If you're confused about Bjorn Lomborg's take on climate change and environmentalism, make sure to check out his TED Talks video.
See also: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com
Access: Public
Well, if only rich people put solar panels on their roofs, that's groovy because rich people who live in single family dwellings are some of the biggest energy consumers (at the consumer level of private individuals and families).
Thanks for the links, ~C! I'll check 'em out :)
I have to say your Uncle Scott has let me down lately. I like his comics and everything, but that horrendous irony debaucle regarding the Iranian president and now this cognitive dissonance blog… I am almost tempted to send him an e-mail.
For one thing, the whole usage of irony was bound to turn up vastly varied responses, seeing as how even in individuals where satire is recognized, 80% of folks tend to take things at face value. Now isn't that ironic?
Irony is a way of saying, “I'm not meaning what I'm saying. If you try and discover what I am actually trying to mean, it automatically makes you both wrong and look ridiculous.” It was a real asshole move, and his audience, every single one of them, even the ones that categorized the audience response and analyzed the satirical remarks were way off the mark. Some poor people even got greeted with reciprocal comments from Scott like, “I agree with your rebuttal against your hallucination of my view.” You see? There was no way anyone could possibly pinpoint his “view”, his actual view, because writing the post that way exempted him from having a view.
When he actually did humbly reveal his “positions” I found them to be a little bit repellent. He was “pointing out similarities” not “making comparisons” and apparently if you don't sympathize with the group who is suffering the most, even if they brought it on themselves, you are inhuman. Hmm……
Then there's this whole business about cognitive dissonance. Sure, it's a real phenomenon and it's interesting, but it clearly consumes a large amount of Uncle Scott's thought. I mean, why pinpoint one phenomenon in which individuals are not receptive to information (not even the most interesting case of this- I would say developmental signified is way more intriguing), and keep on going on and on about it? We get it. It's out there.
On the other hand, that panel really did seem pretty bamboozled and cognitively dissonant.
Perhaps I am now just framing all of his posts in a negative light, based on my aversion to the rank joke he pulled on everyone with that satirical bit. Perpaps I was just being cognitively dissonant. Perhaps that really is all there is to life. That and studying the economy.
And finally, Lomborg is a KICK-ASS tennis player! I love tennis!
LOL. i think you should've posted your rant on Uncle Scott's blog too. don't you notice some similarity between Scotty and Wyatt Earpy?
anyway, i think being integrally informed minimizes cognitive dissonace a bit.
~C
Great links man - I was watching that episode of Real Time and was like WTF. Rob Thomas just totally dismissed the Cool It book dude's comments. It made me think about why that was and then you posted this and it makes alot of sense. I think they either wouldn't or couldn't hear what the guy was saying…I'm much more a fan of the “both and” than the “either or” camp. I will have to check out Adams' blog more often.
I really liked what he said about the skill of being able to recognize all sides of an argument and how that is lacking in a lot of people…good stuff…
I'm willing to be informed/educated differently, but the idea that “free trade”, i.e. all the free trade agreements and the IMF, World Bank, etc. will pull 20-30 million people out of poverty…well..perhaps out of direst poverty, but globalized “flat earth” “free” trade largely benefits a tiny class of people at the very top, the large multi-national corporations and their large investors (the plutocratic class) who seek cheap labor and unregulated environments for maximum short-term profit (and to hell with the environment, worker safety and living wages, and product safety - see China).
Meanwhile, middle classes in the developed countries lose millions of jobs and sink from a healthy middle class income into near-poverty. See the book “The Global Class War” by Jeff Faux, among others. See the writings of David Sirota, also.