Nutty claim: Our ability to think inhibits our climate response

Rodin's 'The Thinker' at the Legion of Honor, San Francisco, California
Rodin’s ‘The Thinker’ at the Legion of Honor, San Francisco, California

“… humans … are bogged down by their unique ability to rationalize and reason.”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Raghu Murtugudden, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Forecasting System at the University of Maryland Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center (ESSIC), and a professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, believes that the ability of humans to think is a disadvantage, when responding to climate change.

According to Professor Murtugudden (comparing our response to climate change to finding cheese in a maze);

“…  mice can sense the coming change. Before it’s too late, they run through the maze and find new cheese. The men, however, fail to notice the subtle collapse in the cheese supply until it’s nearly too late. Haw, the more proactive of the little men, realizes that the cheese has all but disappeared and sets out in the maze to find new cheese. He learns a number of lessons along the way and does manage to both find new cheese and enjoy it as much as the old. Hem, however, remains unconvinced that the cheese will disappear. He also concludes that even if the cheese were to disappear, he wouldn’t like the new cheese anyway.

The moral of the story is that even creatures like mice — with their simple brains — are biologically tuned to notice and rapidly respond to change, whereas humans — the most evolved life form — are bogged down by their unique ability to rationalize and reason. Some members of the species even resort to wholesale denial that change is well underway, even when said change is caused by their own actions.

The parallels to humans and climate change are rather obvious. Humans are constantly seeking more and more comforts, even at the cost of irreversibly damaging the planet.

Less fortunate humans may, in fact, be more in tune with environmental changes and quicker to adapt, even when the changes result from over-consumption by the rich. Some humans are more sensitive to changes, even if they are late in responding to them. Others may resort to complete denial of the change itself or deny the need for action to avert change, especially when the thermostat is being discreetly adjusted.”

Its difficult to know how to respond to that – I always thought our ability to reason is the asset which has facilitated our greatest achievements, a gift which has allowed humans to adapt to and thrive in an extraordinary range of climatic conditions.

Perhaps Professor Murtugudden should be more careful in future, about checking the use-by date on his cheese.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 4, 2015 12:06 am

Perhaps we “men mice” can sense that we in an artificial environment, look over the maze walls, determine how the cheese is delivered and plan to find the cheese source.

Reply to  davesivyer
February 4, 2015 3:04 am


ferd berple
Reply to  3ghostninja
February 4, 2015 2:26 pm

the most evolved life form — are bogged down by their unique ability to rationalize and reason.
the good professor forgets imagination. Some folks can imagine that the cheese is moving even when it is sitting in front of their face. As a result they run off looking for new cheese where there is none, and insist that all the other mice believe the cheese is moving as well, so they won’t feel silly running off on their own.

ferd berple
Reply to  3ghostninja
February 4, 2015 2:34 pm

another example of the power of imagination to deceive is people that look into the future with anxiety, and see that all the cheese that is sitting in front of them has been eaten. so rather than sit and eat the cheese, they run off looking for more cheese out of fear they will run out. and every time they find new cheese, they look to the future and also imagine a time that this new cheese will also be eaten, so rather than eat this cheese they again run off looking for new cheese out of fear they will run out. These people are called climate science policy makers. They want us all to share their anxiety for the future, and join their search for new cheese, leaving the cheese we already have in the ground for future mice to find.

Bryan A
Reply to  3ghostninja
February 7, 2015 12:02 pm

1000 up Ferd

Reply to  davesivyer
February 4, 2015 4:20 am

Not realising that the cheese source will return before they starve the mice conclude that the lack of supply is due to their presence in the maze – to preserve the remaining cheese they decide that suicide is the only route, thus solving both the dwindling supply and future supply of cheese – problem solved………….if there are no mice left to eat the cheese, in the mouse universe does cheese exist???
Oh by the way and just in case /sarc

Sal Minella
Reply to  mwh
February 4, 2015 7:20 am

If there are no mice left, does the mouse universe exist?

Reply to  mwh
February 4, 2015 10:36 am

You have stumbled upon the goal of the left. We are the mice, they want complete control over the cheese. Problem solved!

Paul Mackey
Reply to  davesivyer
February 4, 2015 4:51 am

So the argument is – we don’t belive in CAGW becasue we think. – Can’t argue with that.
Therefore that those who do believe in CAGW don’t think! – Can’t argue with that either.

Just an engineer
Reply to  Paul Mackey
February 4, 2015 5:00 am


Reply to  Paul Mackey
February 4, 2015 5:22 am

+ 10,000

Reply to  Paul Mackey
February 4, 2015 5:55 am

Ouch! Maybe they ‘sense’ things as opposed to thinking?

Sun Spot
Reply to  Paul Mackey
February 4, 2015 6:39 am


Reply to  Paul Mackey
February 4, 2015 6:58 am

The claim “… humans … are bogged down by their unique ability to rationalize and reason.”
seems to have been made by one not using his/her “unique ability to rationalize and reason”.

Reply to  Paul Mackey
February 4, 2015 7:12 am

So they admit theirs is just a belief system without benefit of rational though and objective support. Weird the lengths they go to justify being irrational and mystic. Just weird!

John M
Reply to  Paul Mackey
February 4, 2015 7:31 am

“Ouch! Maybe they ‘sense’ things as opposed to thinking?”
Sounds like you may have some familiarity with Myers Briggs profiling.
Perhaps the good professor’s MB designation is SITD.
Of course, one could also say a MB designation is simply a SFLA.

Reply to  Paul Mackey
February 4, 2015 8:07 am

Extra Primo Good Mr. Mackey!

Reply to  Paul Mackey
February 4, 2015 8:29 am

Best reply ever to a yet another anti human utterance that is little more that verbal diarrhoea

Reply to  davesivyer
February 4, 2015 5:27 am

I would rewrite that to “believes that the ability of humans to think is a disadvantage, when responding to “policy based” climate change(propaganda).

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Jon
February 4, 2015 5:37 am

That just works.

Reply to  Jon
February 5, 2015 12:55 am

What he is saying is that in addition to the dumming down of the people They also must make an effort to reduce or inhibit the People’s ability to think. This sounds more and more like totalitarian religion of ideology?

Reply to  davesivyer
February 4, 2015 6:31 am

This reminds me of a Pinky and the Brain episode where they are dropped into a maze by a scientist and as Pinky dances along jumping up to look over the walls for the cheese, the Brain slogs along hands behind his back, snarling about how stupid scientists are and how he plans to take over the world.

Reply to  emsnews
February 4, 2015 10:16 am

I see this whole absurdity as Gore et al’s “plan to take over the world” .

Hot under the collar
Reply to  davesivyer
February 4, 2015 9:12 am

Professor Murtugudden may be right, his ability to rationalize and reason enabled him to become a Professor – now he has written this – he must be bogged down by something.

Two Labs
Reply to  Hot under the collar
February 4, 2015 9:35 am

Trust me – rationalization and reason have nothing to do with becoming a University professor this day and age.

george e. smith
Reply to  davesivyer
February 4, 2015 10:43 am

So Professor Murtugudden is also a behavioral psychologist .
A life long friend of mine IS actually a Behavioral Psychologist, (so’s his wife), and both of them would shriek with laughter at that nonsense that Raghu just spouted above.
Also a lot of those psychological maze running experiments these days are actually done using humans, instead of rats or mice. My buddy says that the best candidates for such experiments are typically lawyers.
Apparently there are just some things that rats won’t do !

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
February 4, 2015 10:46 am

PS izzat SF “Thinker” , the actual real one; or is it just a homogenized substitute ??
So where is the real one ??

Reply to  george e. smith
February 4, 2015 11:10 am

He is barely holding back the Gates of Hell as it is.
“Gates of Hell” by Auguste Rodin
“When the cerebral cortex is damaged, raw limbic emotions rage freely through human words and deeds, as we have seen in the literature on T[raumatic] B[rain] I[njury].
There is, in fact very convincing evidence that sociopaths and recidivist criminals have a shrunken or impaired frontal lobe. Lacking this ‘buffer’ of social evaluation and inner control, the sociopath is said to be ‘capable of anything.’
(Additional evidence suggests that one of the primary causes of frontal lobe underdevelopment is a lack of primary nurturance and a ‘normal’ family life.)”
~Stephen Larsen

Robert B
Reply to  george e. smith
February 4, 2015 1:48 pm

A sociopath is someone with weak instincts when it comes to feeling empathy for the suffering of others . It could be genetic or due to injury. Early life experiences either teach the person to care anyway or to be even more selfish.
Not much different to
“Lacking this ‘buffer’ of social evaluation and inner control, the sociopath is said to be ‘capable of anything.”
but I’m not being paid to write academic drivel.
I’m not going to tar all academics because one did come up with this gem of a riddle.
A woman meets a man at a funeral of a relative. The two talk for hours and get along like a house on fire. Eventually they separate and she doesn’t find him again until the funeral is over and everyone has left. She then kills her sister. Why?
I tried to figure it out for about 5 minutes even though its a riddle that sociopaths find easy to solve. Eventually the person who told it to me blurted the answer out. Obvious answer but it felt like getting hit by a bus.

ferd berple
Reply to  george e. smith
February 4, 2015 2:20 pm

My buddy says that the best candidates for such experiments are typically lawyers.
How about the Climate Scientists that were pushing the house down the road. They were trying to jump start the furnace.

Reply to  davesivyer
February 4, 2015 11:15 am

Murtugudden cheese???

ferd berple
Reply to  davesivyer
February 4, 2015 2:17 pm

The article appears to be a rip-off of “Who Moved My Cheese?”
Here is what WikiBible has to say on the subject:
The common retort to the message in the parable is that it is a “patronizing message for the proletariat to acquiesce.”[5].

Reply to  davesivyer
February 5, 2015 5:11 am

Nah that is prairie dogging, already done. Don’t give Prof Mouthful any more ideas.

February 4, 2015 12:13 am

Those “rats” would know when the CAGW gravy train is leaving the station.

Reply to  Streetcred
February 4, 2015 6:01 am

We could say that the unthinking rats sense the good ship global warming is sinking and are looking for new sources of cheese (funding). The author of the above drivel should find new sources of cheddar.

Jimmy Haigh.
February 4, 2015 12:17 am

Yet another “intellectual” who thinks he’s smarter than the rest of us.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh.
February 4, 2015 3:22 am

I believe the disease is called “too smart by half”.

Reply to  M Simon
February 4, 2015 4:57 am

My dad used to refer to this type as an “overeducated fool”.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh.
February 4, 2015 3:30 am

Perhaps the genius can explain what “climate response” actually means…

Reply to  Brute
February 4, 2015 5:29 am

It means nationally/internationally more socialism and socialists solutions.

AJ Virgo
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh.
February 4, 2015 3:43 am

The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

David Ross
Reply to  AJ Virgo
February 4, 2015 11:52 am

“mice can sense the coming change. Before it’s too late”
No, they’re animals and act on instinct. Mankind alone on this planet has a developed sense of, historical perspective, cause and effect and foresight. Some of us anyway.
The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
Still thou are blest, compared wi’ me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But och! I backward cast my e’e,
On prospects drear!
An’ forward, tho’ I canna see,
I guess an’ fear!

Reed Coray
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh.
February 4, 2015 9:10 am

No, Jim. The intellectual doesn’t think, he senses.

Reply to  Reed Coray
February 4, 2015 4:10 pm

The intellectual FEELS. This very long and thick Bull Snake was tried to come home (my side of the Canal) in a sudden storm Nov. 2014. It froze into the ice of the Canal and was apparently picked up by a bird or two. So much for the fools theory that man in general is more foolish than a snake.

Tim Garland
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh.
February 4, 2015 9:18 am

“Intellectual” definition:
Someone who has been educated past his capacity to actually understand things.

Reply to  Tim Garland
February 4, 2015 9:57 am

“Intellectual” definition:
Someone who has been educated past his capacity to actually understand things.

“Intellectual” definition:
Someone who has paid millions of dollars to be educated waaaay past his capacity to actually understand things by other educated people who have been repeated told they have been educated according to their ability to “know” more and more about less and less until everybody knows everything about nothing in the real world.

Reply to  Tim Garland
February 5, 2015 12:45 am

The more you know and understand the more you realize that there is even more that you don’t know or understand.

James Harlock
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh.
February 5, 2015 8:40 am

Best part is the fact that mice do not naturally live in mazes, and cheese is a man-made product. Classic example of “model” =/= “reality.

The Ol' Seadog.
February 4, 2015 12:18 am

That statue is part of a a joke about Paddy and four statues…. Paddy names that one ” Who farted?”….

The Sage
February 4, 2015 12:18 am

Professor Murtugudden should be more up to date on management self-help; his dilemma is a solved problem —

February 4, 2015 12:23 am

We don’t want you to think we want you to believe!

Reply to  ggf
February 4, 2015 4:43 am

Precisely. As many of you know I have created the Axemaker Mind metaphor to describe precisely what K-12 education is to no longer feed. This actually goes back to a book Paul Ehrlich wrote with Robert Ornstein published in 1989 where they pushed ‘Newmindedness’ that was not tied to rational, logical analysis. Ehrlich’s colleague, John Holdren, now has the League of Innovative Schools and the Digital Promise intitiative reporting to him in his capacity as science czar. He is thus literally in a position to build that Arational mind that confuses virtual reality with actual reality and believes from created experiences instead of a store of factual knowledge.
This kind of pushed activities will not help either.
Just to really blow our minds, the OECD is doing research on how to best lock in these altered beliefs at a neuorobiological level. Showing Orwell may not have been satirical enough for the 21st Century parasitic change agents.

February 4, 2015 12:25 am

What’s Professor Murtugudden’s creditentials when he tries same fallacie as those proving Moon is a cheese made… People is allowed to be stupid. Bad show proving it.
An argument is valid if the conclusion must be true whenever the premises are true. In other words, an argument is valid if the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion. Stating the conclusion explicitly is in some sense redundant, because the conclusion follows from the premises: it serves to draw our attention to the fact that that particular statement is one (of many) that must be true if the premises are true. An argument that is not valid is invalid or fallacious.
If an argument is valid and its premises are true, the argument is sound. If an argument is not sound it is unsound. An argument can be valid even if its premises are false—but such an argument is unsound. For instance, the following argument is valid but unsound:
Cheese more than a billion years old is stale. The Moon is made of cheese. The Moon is more than a billion years old. Therefore, the Moon is stale cheese.
If all three premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true. The argument is valid despite the fact that the Moon is not made of cheese, but the argument is unsound—because the Moon is not made of cheese. Chapter 16, Propositional Logic, discusses validity and soundness in more detail.
The logical form of the argument just above is (roughly):
For any x, if x is A and x is B then x is C. y is A. y is B. Therefore, y is C. [+]
Here, A is “made of cheese,” B is “more than a billion years old.” and C is “stale.” The symbol x is a free variable that can stand for anything; the symbol y stands for the Moon. Note that this example uses A, B, and C to represent properties of objects (categories, see Chapter 15, Categorical Logic), rather than to represent statements (whole sentences), as above.
Reasoning and Fallacies, page

Reply to  norah4you
February 4, 2015 5:02 am

My dad used to prove this in a syllogism: Would you rather have true happiness in life or a ham sandwich? The answer is a ham sandwich, because
Nothing is better than true happiness in life, and
A ham sandwich is better than nothing.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  norah4you
February 4, 2015 9:16 am

Here’s a syllogism from Raymond Smullyan.
Everyone is afraid of Dracula.
I’m afraid only of myself.
Therefore, I’m Dracula.

george e. smith
Reply to  norah4you
February 4, 2015 2:40 pm

Well I have actually eaten cheese that was at the time 75 years old. That cheese is now about 130 years old (and I am quite certain that some of it is still in existence. It was actually buried in a volcanic eruption in 1883 / 6 (can’t remember); a whole barrel of it in the local “store” in a buried village.
Now a tourist site, there was a hole in the side of the wooden barrel, where a twig could get you a sample of the cheddar like cheese. Very tasty it was.
Probably still is.

Reply to  george e. smith
February 4, 2015 6:22 pm

Old Cheese might taste good. But how does it smell?
Btw. Did you know that the Norse Greenlanders exported(!) not only ivory and cod to Europe from mid 10’s Century up to second half 1400’s. Their cheese had so high quaility that it’s noted to have been exported in salt water at least from 12th century up to early 1400’s Early North American History part ; Norse American – Greenlandic – Norse History

February 4, 2015 12:27 am

They found writing on the wall of the maze.

February 4, 2015 12:28 am

Wow, his argument is completely logically flawed. Rational thinking would lead one to investiagte the source of the missing cheese and search for new cheese. Irrational thinking that has no basis on fact but is based on emotional hypothesising would lead to staying with the dwindling supply.
The logical principles here prove the opposite of his argument. he’s using false equivalency, the ‘irrational’ with ‘dwindling supplies’ to attempt to claim that ‘not recognising change’ equates to irrationality when in actual fact the principle at work here is not analysing the data and basing decisions on speculative hypothesising equates to irrationality.
The mice that refuse to see the declining cheese are the equivalent of the Alarmists who refuse to see the data, they think to themselves the data doesn’t mean anything and surely the new cheese is bound to be non-existent because their models or visions don’t predict it.
Skeptics would review the data and come to the decision that the cheese is declining, they would prefer to adapt to the situation and seek new cheese.

Reply to  sabretruthtiger
February 4, 2015 4:02 am

The heck with cheese. I’m going for the steak.

Robert B
Reply to  sabretruthtiger
February 4, 2015 2:07 pm

The sense the dear professor was referring to was hunger. It normally wouldn’t influence the mouse until the cheese has run out completely. They don’t sense a subtle change in cheese supply. Other animals might instinctively search for food to store once they have eaten enough but I don’t think that mice do that.
Of the animals that do store food, they do it instinctively regardless of what the food situation is. Such instincts have caused animals grief instead of benefited them, but we rarely see that. I wonder if the professor had ever heard of natural selection.
Basically, if we go with our gut instincts we could get it wrong and be wiped out. If we reason, then we can change before the population is reduced to the small number who had different instincts (or the ones who told the porkies).

Barry Sheridan
February 4, 2015 12:28 am

What bilge! No surprise he is a university professor, the modern repository of imaginative drivel.

Reply to  Barry Sheridan
February 4, 2015 5:57 am

Repository or suppository?

Reply to  old44
February 4, 2015 8:15 am

Does that make the good doctor the aperture to the repository of the suppository?

February 4, 2015 12:39 am

Does this actually mean anything? I really think these people are going quite insane. Maybe they should come out of their dark little burrows and sniff the air – its not getting any hotter.

Reply to  Goldie
February 4, 2015 4:18 am

His argument is easily tested. Substitute other animals for mice – dogs : no, doesn’t work. Cows : no, doesn’t work. Earthworms : no, doesn’t work. Conclusion : his argument is wrong.
Come to think of it, it never worked for mice anyway.

February 4, 2015 12:40 am

The moral of the story is that he would prefer that we were all mice in a maze doing his bidding because he’s oh so much more clever than the rest of us.

February 4, 2015 12:41 am

Two things.
“…even at the cost of irreversibly damaging the planet”. Seriously, look at the history of our planet and look at how it has recovered from far worse ‘irreversible damage’. Technically speaking it shouldn’t even be habitable now with that level of idiotic unscientific claim. And didn’t he just state that nature is far better at adapting to changes than us? Derp.
And secondly, mice don’t even like cheese.

Reply to  DDP
February 4, 2015 6:38 am

Mice eat nearly everything.

Reply to  emsnews
February 4, 2015 7:16 am

True…. I’ve seen mice eat the wrappers off soap bars, then consume some of the soap.

February 4, 2015 12:44 am

I have read that in New Scientist I believe. Inanity at it’s finest. Meteorologist Larry Olson here…..

Rex Sellar
Reply to  Foghorn The IKonoclast
February 4, 2015 1:07 am

“when the thermostat is being discreetly adjusted.” – does he not more accurately mean, when the data is discretely adjusted?

Reply to  Rex Sellar
February 4, 2015 2:25 am

One and the same. It would be one to have a calibrated adjustment and one that was made to skew the numbers…

Har Seldon
February 4, 2015 12:47 am

Just goes to show the quality of people who are in scientific administration.

February 4, 2015 12:59 am

Academia as sheltered employment for the intellectually challenged. Seems to be getting worse ….

February 4, 2015 1:02 am

Eric Worrall
When I awoke this morning I was struck by the thought, “Am I a man or a mouse?”
After giving the matter several minutes of thought I decided to get out of bed and make myself a cheese sandwich.

Reply to  richardscourtney
February 4, 2015 1:54 am

Be sure to remove the green mould before consumption 😉

george e. smith
Reply to  Eric Worrall
February 4, 2015 2:50 pm

Well New Zealand Blue Vein Cheese is some of the finest tasting stinky stuff in the world.
It is beast if eaten just before it fully develops the means of walking off the dish by itself.

Reply to  richardscourtney
February 4, 2015 6:28 am

If in doubt, you can always ask your cat for an opinion.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 5, 2015 12:48 am

Note to self: Must buy a cat.

February 4, 2015 1:05 am

H.L. Mencken once observed that you could take any moron, drag him though a university, even confer a P.h.D. upon him, but he would still be a moron. And today we have even more evidence that Mencken understood the situation.

Reply to  markstoval
February 4, 2015 6:31 am

Or to cite a Boileu aphorism:
“Study can make an unlearned man learned, but not a stupid man wise”

Robert B
Reply to  tty
February 4, 2015 2:10 pm

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

Reply to  markstoval
February 4, 2015 7:29 am

There are people who are in essence very evolved parrots. They can parrot back any information provided to them in a very efficient manner, dress it up in slightly different wording, and thereby earn a PHD. At the end of their PHD, they become a pedigreed parrot, unable to recognize critical thinking if it took the form of a bus and ran them over.
Murtugudden fails in his analysis, demonstrates a lack of common sense never mind critical thinking, provides a nonsensical argument, is stuck in climate doom group think and… is a Professor.
It is important to be able to demonstrate sound understanding of the historical and current state of your field. However, PHDs should never be given to individuals who do not demonstrate advanced analytic ability, critical thinking, sound argumentation and independent thought. Otherwise we have what we have now, parrots who can only teach how to be parrots.

February 4, 2015 1:05 am
M Courtney
February 4, 2015 1:14 am

So much wrong with this. How many times have we run out of anything without finding an alternative? That might make him question his assumption that intelligence is an evolutionary disadvantage.
Presumably this guy is a fundamentalist who believes developing a solution to nakedness is an original badness and evolution never happens.
Of course, there is a reason we use mice in mazes. They are simple enough to study.
The real world and human minds are far more complex. If complexity is confusing it may be tempting to imagine it doesn’t exist.
Professor Murtugudden does seem to be at home with the simple.

Reply to  M Courtney
February 4, 2015 5:42 am

“That might make him question his assumption that intelligence is an evolutionary disadvantage.” Aah, but you need to consider the ecosystem. In a university, it is.

george e. smith
Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 4, 2015 2:54 pm

Well so far we have the dinosaurs demonstrating that just being big and mean and ugly, easily beats out intelligence in the art of survival. They made it for 165 million years or so, and we have not yet seen our first million, and likely won’t.

DD More
Reply to  M Courtney
February 4, 2015 9:28 am

M Courtney – “a reason we use mice in mazes. They are simple enough to study. The real world and human minds are far more complex.”
Problem is the simple may not truly identify the complex.
From – CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman
Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974.
All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on–with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.
The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.
He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.
Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using–not what you think it’s using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running.
I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn’t discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science.
Quoting a long time resident of North Dakota during a winter blizzard, “Birds have itty-bitty brains, but they are smart enough to fly south for the winter.”

February 4, 2015 1:18 am

….but we have kept floating throughout the ice ages because of our unique ability to rationalise and reason!
Where is he coming from??

February 4, 2015 1:24 am

What does Professor Murtugudden think about the cat?

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Paul Berberich
February 4, 2015 3:22 am

The “all cats have three tails fallacy”?
To those who do not know the fallacy.
Premise 1 One cat has one more tail than no cat
Premise 2 No cat has two tails
Ergo all cats have three tails

David A
Reply to  Richard of NZ
February 4, 2015 4:59 am

How is one faulty? It is the same as saying one cat has one tail. It is the conclusion that is faulty. Besides, premise two is a non cogent and unknown assertion.
Basically the assertion is one cat has one tail, therefore all cats have three tails. (Sounds like the professor this post is about)

Joe Civis
Reply to  Richard of NZ
February 4, 2015 12:20 pm

not all cats have tails… I have “rumpy” Manx his genetic make up means he was born with no tail at all. so this cat has the same number of tails as no cat. 🙂

Greg Woods
February 4, 2015 1:26 am

How long will it take for the Warmunista Commentariat start responding with that ‘insight’?

February 4, 2015 1:32 am

Says Hem to Haw “what’s that you’re eating?”
“mouse, I’m bloody sick of cheese”

February 4, 2015 1:38 am

I think what the good prof is really trying to tell us that anyone who believes in CAGW is dumber than a sack of hammers. :-o)

Sun Spot
Reply to  AB
February 4, 2015 6:51 am

I think the professor had a cranial run in with a sack of hammers.

Reed Coray
Reply to  AB
February 4, 2015 9:17 am

Or even worse, dumber than Barbara Boxer.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Reed Coray
February 4, 2015 3:39 pm

Is that truly possible??

February 4, 2015 1:41 am

I think what the good prof is trying to tell us is that anyone believing in CAGW has to be dumber than a sack of hammers. :-0)

David, UK
February 4, 2015 1:55 am

This is the sort of BS pedalled by the USSR to keep the population in control. Don’t think, just sacrifice, trust the intellectual elite. It’s why Socialism always fails.

Ivor Ward
February 4, 2015 2:04 am

If you disagree with his marriage of faux science and logical fallacy, squeak up or forever hold your peace.

William Baird
February 4, 2015 2:08 am

I think what the learned proffessor is trying to say is that warmists have a difficulty with those who have the faculty of thought and reason.
If you dont think about what you are told about so called Climate Change then its easier to accept it. If you do think about what we are told then you quickly see through the hoax. Now tell me which thimble the pea is under…., I will make it easier if I use smoke and mirrors to help you mindlessly accept what comrade Obama says.

February 4, 2015 2:08 am

Ah, yes, folks… Step right up and forget the Scientific Method, avoid logic, toss away all reason and abandon common sense.
Just be good little mindless lab rats and follow the magical CAGW tune of the leftist pied pipers as they lead humanity over a cliff…
Jeez… The loony leftists’ desperation is becoming palpable.

Reply to  SAMURAI
February 4, 2015 7:21 am

And yet this guy likely obeys all traffic norms such as driving on the correct side of the road and stopping at stop signs. To do otherwise is to risk life and limb. His inability to grasp that example simply means he shouldn’t be making such silly pronouncements for they obviously contradict nature’s laws. The term “idiot” immediately comes to mind.

Old Forge
February 4, 2015 2:11 am

Interesting. On the upside, Professor Murtugudden does say that only relatively thick people are attuned to climate change.
It would be good if Professor Murtugudden read Dr Yuval Noah Harari’s “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.” This says that Sapiens can co-operate effectively in groups of up to about 150 members, based on shared understanding and requirements. Larger groups, however, require myths, fictions, social constructs and imagined realities in order to maintain cohesion and growth. Such constructs don’t need to be beneficial, so long as they help to maintain and promote the prevailing order: ‘Telling effective stories is not easy … Much of history revolves around this question: how does one convince millions of people to believe particular stories about gods, or nations, or limited liability companies?’
Unfortunately, the book mentions modern ‘Climate Change’ as a real and pressing problem, rather than as just another of the stories it has taken pains to demolish. Is it more trouble than it’s worth to rock the boat of academia at present? Maybe Dr Harari gives away his own thoughts earlier in the book. He flags up the modern academic urge to rewrite history and blame mass extinctions on ‘climate change’. A bit like Marxist interpretation of history? Dr Harari has no truck with this – for him, Sapiens are guilty as charged.
For me, the urgency and deceit inherent in the ‘fight against climate change’ fit Dr Harari’s thesis to a ‘T’: ‘Co-operation networks [are usually] geared towards oppression and exploitation.’

Reply to  Old Forge
February 4, 2015 6:41 am

Actually, both the name and the logic system of this teacher is straight out of Hogwarts School of Magick.

Walt D.
February 4, 2015 2:18 am

He has missed the point. The mouse realizes that there is no cheese and stops looking. The cheese here is CAGW. There has been no cheese here for over 18 years. Yet the Global Warming establishment keep looking because they think there ought to be cheese there. Anyone who disagrees with them is a “cheese denier”.

Peter Davidson
February 4, 2015 2:31 am

Is it just my imagination, or are the acronyms breeding?

Julian Williams in Wales
February 4, 2015 2:35 am

This is just such a contorted twisted view of how the human mind a and reason operate. Mice and human brains are similarly organised below the level of the neocortex and Prefrontal Cortex (known as the executive brain and seat of rational behaviour). Like mice we have emotional responses and gut reactions to dangerous situations, and all most all our decision making are instigated by our fast emotional responses to things that happen in the outside world.
There is the interesting story of fire fighters who were fighting a fire in a valley. The wind unexpected changed direction and the fire came towards them trapping them between the steep sides of the valley. Their immediate reaction was to run away from the fire, which is what they all did. One fire fighter stopped running away and lit a fire in front downwind, the fire burnt a big patch of dried vegetation in front of where he was about to run, and he then stepped into the safety this burnt patch where he survived. His friend’s were all killed.
This story illustrates a basic point about how reason works, it suppresses our fast acting gut responses with reasoned responses. Most of the time the gut reactions are the correct responses, they keep us fast and safe. Reason is an afterthought mechanism that stops us from being foolish.
Interestingly climate change is promoted by alarmism. The proponents of AGW try to take over our emotional minds and suppress rational debate.

M Courtney
Reply to  Julian Williams in Wales
February 4, 2015 2:49 am

So which fire killed his buddies?
The first fire or the one he lit.

Julian Williams in Wales
Reply to  M Courtney
February 4, 2015 9:31 am

Once the fire fighters started to run away the outcome was inevitable. Each and everyone of them could have done the same thing.

Mike Rossander
Reply to  M Courtney
February 4, 2015 9:34 am

Julian is retelling the story of the Mann Gulch fire of 1949. To add a few more details, the “escape fire” was set by foreman Wagner Dodge. The brush fire he created was quite small, especially compared to the wildfire that they were all running from. That wildfire, for comparison, burned some 3000 acres in 10 minutes and generated updrafts and oxygen depletions which killed some of the other firefighters before they had a chance to burn. It swept up the 76 degree slope far faster than a man could run. Even among the four who did reach the top of the ridge, only two survived, the other two getting trapped int he rocks. While a few of the parents of the burned firefighters did try to sue the government, claiming in part that the escape fire caused their deaths, there was no evidence to support their claims.
The story of the Mann Gulch fire has been retold in “Young Men and Fire” (Norman Maclean), folksongs such as “Cold Missouri Waters” (James Keelaghan) and the movie “Red Skies of Montana”.

Reply to  M Courtney
February 4, 2015 1:02 pm

Oh sorry,
I thought the story was apocryphal and was being sarcastic for levity.
My apologies for the poor taste.

February 4, 2015 2:42 am

It seems the professor is frustrated at his inability to manipulate mankind to his liking, so he creates a fantasy to blame the subject.

February 4, 2015 3:01 am

Shocking anti-intellectualism from an academic. Are reason, honest scepticism, and vigorous inquiry to be sidelined? Is this not a device of the totalitarian?

chris moffatt
February 4, 2015 3:03 am

Oh dear – another academic faking his thought experiments!

February 4, 2015 3:07 am

Question for the Dr,? How do you move a hockey stick through the maze? Ah I get you cut it into smaller pieces and discard them you can eat your cheese and have it too.(not so much the hockey stick it is made out of maple).

February 4, 2015 3:09 am

Actually you cut the hockey stick into pieces so you can make them fit your cheese Dr.

February 4, 2015 3:12 am

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha.
We white mice are watching.

February 4, 2015 3:12 am

The way I read this , is that he is saying that only those with a brain the size of a mouse think we should believe in CO2 forced global warming/climate change/climate dis–whatever.. and panic into doing anything about this imaginary non-problem.
From most of the alarmists I have met, I tend to agree with him.

February 4, 2015 3:19 am

So naivete and ignorance are now a virtue according to a climate scientist. How unexpected.

February 4, 2015 3:20 am
Mike the Morlock
Reply to  bernie1815
February 4, 2015 3:28 am

Darn… there must be more… THERE MUST BE MORE!

Mike the Morlock
February 4, 2015 3:23 am

I think Dr Murtugudden has lost “it”. I think he needs a long vacation a long rest. By the way the Book Who moved my cheese? Its for people such as the good Doctor, who lost perspective and need a change. Its a Management book to help people adjust to career change. To get them out of a rut. It was meant for people in his situation.
On the lighter side reading the article reminded me Uh! I forgot to take my “meds” this evening. (Had surgery a few months back)

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 4, 2015 6:42 am

Some seem to be saying that they think the professor forgot to take his meds, too.
Thanks for reminding me…

A C Osborn
February 4, 2015 3:26 am

This Professor should be laughed out of Academia, he has everyting backwards, very much like Climate Scientists.

Margaret Smith
February 4, 2015 3:36 am

“Less fortunate humans may, in fact, be more in tune with environmental changes and quicker to adapt, even when the changes result from over-consumption by the rich. ”
A bit of class warfare as well?

February 4, 2015 3:40 am

Slightly off topic, but read SoDs recent excellent post.
It could easily be reposted here for bigger circulation.

Alan the Brit
February 4, 2015 3:42 am

Looks like he’s a climate scientist, trying to be a psychologist! Heaven help us whatever next! Perhaps the good professor is doing a tad too much thinking himself?

February 4, 2015 3:45 am

Some cheese is not any good until after the “use-by” date.
What a friend we have in cheeses.

February 4, 2015 3:46 am

Some cheeses are not any good until after the use by date.
What a friend we have in cheeses.

February 4, 2015 3:54 am

One day this cheese ball Earth is going to be consumed by an expanding Sun. I sure hope my offspring are able to adapt to minuscule changes and flee this cheese ball for another cheese ball that may be warmer or colder. Only a true believer thinks Earth doesn’t change and that humans are unable to adapt.

February 4, 2015 4:00 am

Everyone must often have reflected that it is man’s fallen nature that prevents certain individuals from perceiving the clear will of God, and this is why they continue to do the many things which God has forbidden. If only they would abandon the vain attempt to reason their way through this and just believe, their eternal damnation would be avoided, and they could be saved.
Not to mention if they would only stop worrying and see that this time its different they could get very very rich also.

February 4, 2015 4:14 am

The moral of the story is that even creatures like mice — with their simple brains — are biologically tuned to notice and rapidly respond to change, whereas humans — the most evolved life form — are bogged down by their unique ability to rationalize and reason. Some members of the species even resort to wholesale denial that change is well underway, even when said change is caused by their own actions.
And it’s a good thing humans stubbornly refuse to act on our ever changing climate.

Abstract – August 1974
Climate modeling
Understanding and predicting climate change have recently acquired a sense of urgency with the advent of serious climate-related food shortages and with the realization that human activities may have an influence on climate. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive theory of climate to explain its variability, nor are there physical models that can adequately simulate the climate system….
Paper – 18 December 1968
The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth
…Firstly we shall dwell upon the problem of climate change regularities during the last century. Fig. 1 represents the secular variation of annual temperature in the northern hemisphere that was calculated from the maps of temperature anomalies for each month for the period of 1881 to 1960 which were compiled at the Main Geophysical Observatory…
Tellus – Volume 21, Issue 5, pages 611–619, October 1969
Abstract – 1958
Langbein, W. B.; Schumm, S. A.
Yield of sediment in relation to mean annual precipitation
Effective mean annual precipitation is related to sediment yield from drainage basins throughout the climatic regions of the United States. Sediment yield is a maximum at about 10 to 14 inches of precipitation, decreasing sharply on both sides of this maximum in one case owing to a deficiency of runoff and in the other to increased density of vegetation. Data are presented illustrating the increase in bulk density of vegetation with increased annual precipitation and the relation of relative erosion to vegetative density. It is suggested that the effect of a climatic change on sediment yield depends not only upon direction of climate change, but also on the climate before the change. Sediment concentration in runoff is shown to increase with decreased annual precipitation, suggesting further that a decrease in precipitation will cause stream channel aggradation.
Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 39, Issue 6, p. 1076-1084
Abstract – 1933
Climatic Change as a Factor in Forest Succession
Journal of Forestry, Volume 31, Number 8, 1 December 1933, pp. 934-942(9)
Book – 1930
Mathematical climatology and astronomical theory of climate change
M Milankovich – Handbuch der Klimatologie, 1930

Reply to  Jimbo
February 4, 2015 5:20 am

Jimbo, great links. Thanks

February 4, 2015 4:14 am

To me, the search for cheese clearly represents fracking … it’s nice to know that the professor supports the fossil fuel industry … this also fits with his statement that the poor are more sensitive to change as we all know that the poor are effected more by shortages of energy…

February 4, 2015 4:20 am

If only they acted on climate change.

[links to sources]
Camperdown Chronicle 1903
“In the face of the facts it seems hardly worth while to answer the question, Is the climate changing? Every one knows that we hardly ever have a real old-fashioned, snow-clad Christmas in these times that fires are often welcome on Midsummer Day, and that September— after the cricket season—often turns out to be the best month of the year…”
The Brisbane Courier 1903
“…..that the mean summer temperature at the Melbourne Observatory for the three years from 1859 to 1862 was 75.8, while for the last three years, from 1899 to 1902, the mean summer tempera-ture was 76.5—a difference of less than a degree….”
Examiner (Launceston, Tas.) 1906
That the earth is growing temporarilly warmer is shown by the mountain gla-ciers….The latest report includes 90 glaciers in the Swiss Alps, in Norway, Greenland, the Caucasus, the Pamir, the North West United States, Western Canada. and Africa, and practically all are grow-ing smaller. In the Savoy Alps and the Pyrenees small glaciers have quite dis- appeared.
Cairns Post 1923
“The discovery by American seal fishers that of late there has been a remarkable increase in the mean tem-perature of the Arctic, and that in some parts of the Polar basin no ice has been seen less than 9 degrees from the North Pole, agrees with the ex- perience of many Arctic explorers in recent years…”
The Sydney Morning Herald 1926
“Although the temperature year by year fluctuates widely from the average, there is an underlying upward trend in the northern United States and Canada like a slowly rising tide, while in the south of the United States the trend is the other way. Thus the con-trast between the weather of the north and south is diminishing, and the climate ot the country as a whole is ameliorating…”
The Register News-Pictorial 1930
WARMER WORLD Weather Physicist Looks Ahead
The world is growing warmer. Dr. J. W. Humphreys, physicist of the Weather Bureau,…..”There is evidence, however, that the world as a whole is very slowly growing warmer,” he said. “The evidence is that glaciers in all parts of the world have been on the average slowly retreating since the culmina- tion of the Ice Age, and they are still slowly retreating….”
The Courier-Mail 1934
“The fact that during last year 81 of 100 Swiss glaciers decreased in size did not in any way indicate that the earth was becoming warmer and drier, said professor H. C. Richards, Pro- fessor of Geology at the Queensland University, yesterday, commenting on a message from Geneva concerning a world-wide drought. Even if the ob-servations of Swiss glaciers were con-tinued over a period of 50 years, he said, the data obtained could not warrant any general statement that the world as a whole was becoming drier or warmer…”
Camperdown Chronicle 1937
“We are usually inclined to regard the Arctic as a region where it is always cold. Actually, this is an erroneous belief. In the summer quite a large part of the continental Arctic has temperatures of 80 degrees F. in the shade
The Courier-Mail 1939
“Scientists’ investigations show that the world’s climate is changing. But whether it is becoming wetter, warmer, drier, or colder they can’t say with certainty. Dr. F. W. Whitehouse, University geologist, said this yesterday in an ad- dress to the Constitutional Club…”
Western Mail 1941
Impending Climatic Change
“The report was made by Halbert P. Gillette, of Chicago, to the association’s geology section….”Three of the long climatic cycles.” he reports, “have produced a downward trend in rainfall in many regions, cul-minating in a series of droughts begin-ning about 1920. This series of cycles probably will continue until about 1990. In many regions these droughts bid fair to be more severe than any long series in the last 20 centuries. It will therefore prove futile to continue the present policy of relief in the dustbowl regions. Wholesale migrations from these regions seems advisable.”…”
The Canberra Times 1951
Sunspot activity indicates that the world will have generally cooler summers and colder win-ters during the next 15 years, according to a forecast based on the study of sunspot cycles go- ing back to 1790. Dr. H. C. Willett, meteorolo-gist at the Massachusetts Insti-tue of Technology, said to-day that official records of sunspot activity linked their activity with weather conditions in all parts of the world….”

Chris Wright
February 4, 2015 4:33 am

“… humans … are bogged down by their unique ability to rationalize and reason.”
This obviously doesn’t apply to Raghu Murtugudden.

Bill Yarber
February 4, 2015 4:43 am

What a crock! Humans modify their environment, greatly reducing their need to quickly “adapt” to minor changes: clothes, fire, shelter etc! Humans have adapted their life styles to live from the Africa to the arctic and everywhere in between. We don’t fear minor changes in climate, we over come them. The real problem with this guy is that he thinks too much and very poorly at that.

February 4, 2015 4:51 am

I think the Professor used the wrong Rodent, he meant Lemmings, which easily describes warmists, MSM and those that believe without thinking.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  PeterinMD
February 4, 2015 5:10 am

Damn, you beat me to the Lemmings. So here’s my best shot: A warmist will observe that it’s been an unusually normal year for weather, and since the climate’s natural state is to be variable they will blame the normality on Climate Change

February 4, 2015 5:07 am

LOL, this is hilarious. So… mankind the only species able to make cheese is less adaptable to dwindling cheese supplies then a lab mouse. Just like the way mice started using medicine when it sensed disease, (often stemming from their own actions) clearly superior to how humanity responded as a species to disease. Or like that time when all the mice sensed the spring loaded mechanisms in those mouse traps that used to kill millions of mice a year and then he taught all the other mice to avoid them and they became nearly obsolete. hahahaha. This is one of the more bizarre pieces Ive seen.

Bruce Cobb
February 4, 2015 5:07 am

“… humans … are bogged down by their unique ability to rationalize and reason.”
Oh I dunno, Ragu doesn’t appear to be so encumbered. His mice and cheese analogy is idiotic beyond words.

February 4, 2015 5:16 am

Prof. Murtugudden would prefer that people be lemmings.

Reply to  Sean
February 4, 2015 6:44 am

Professor Murtugudden teaches the Dark Arts at his school. 🙂

February 4, 2015 5:19 am

lol. The climate kooks are confessing their pathetic misanthropy, their lack of rational thought, the lack of reason behind their obsession. This is similar to their demands that the pillars of civil society be set aside so that they can impose their will on the rest of us. So we see that the climate community is against reason, rational thought, diversity of opinion, evidence based decision making, debating or even discussing when it come to getting what they want.
What a dangerous dark and destructive area the climate movement is drifting into.
Meanwhile the climate refuses to cooperate with their fervent hopes and predictions for apocalypse.

February 4, 2015 5:21 am

His name is Murtugudde, without an ‘n’ at the end. If you are going to criticize someone’s work, Eric, the least you could do is spell his name correctly.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  BillW
February 4, 2015 6:27 am

If you are going to criticize someone’s work, BillW, the least you could do is use your real name.
Are you a man, or a mouse?
Have the courage of your convictions.
Grow a pair.
Don’t be such a douchebag.
Get back under your bridge.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 4, 2015 7:35 am

Ps BillW… thanks for the heads up on the name, it is Murtugudde.)
(It’s your penchant for biting little hit and runs that is so irksome.)

Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 5, 2015 5:42 am

I hardly know how to respond to such a ridiculous, yet vicious attack from you. SInce my name is Bill White, I think the handle BillW is appropriate. I rarely comment on WUWT, so I’m not sure why you chose to call me out for hit and run posts. The ad hominem attacks are certainly unnecessary.
How about an apology?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 5, 2015 7:03 am

Yes, my initial response was way over the top, albeit initially accurate. I could have as easily made my point without the “expansions”. I have noticed other posts which you have made and it would not be a misstatement to say that they added to my fervor, here.
Later in this thread, you were twice given credit by me for correcting the spelling of Professor Murtugudde’s name, one immediately precedent your response.
If you are a regular reader at WUWT, then you know that we are frequently beset by anonymous hit and run trolls, who attempt to besmirch the character of others, especially when their target has made a most salient point. Some of them have then returned and demanded an apology for being called to task for their own invectives. You may have only briefly appeared to walk and talk like a duck. We’ll see…
Thanks for returning to the thread and responding, Mr. White. Come back any time.

February 4, 2015 5:24 am

Bringing this down from above so hopefully more will see it. It is the best summary of the pathetic professor’s argument yet:
“Paul Mackey
February 4, 2015 at 4:51 am
So the argument is – we don’t belive in CAGW becasue we think. – Can’t argue with that.
Therefore that those who do believe in CAGW don’t think! – Can’t argue with that either.
Excellent summary, Paul. Thanks.

Reply to  hunter
February 4, 2015 5:40 am

What man eats cheese from a mouse trap? Answer: The infant professor.

Reply to  highflight56433
February 4, 2015 8:06 am

Having dealt with rodent infestations and also actually studied animal behavior a bit, I can confidently state the Professor is completely off base about his assertion that animals inately know how to stay in balance with resources.

David Norman
February 4, 2015 5:25 am

Apparently, Murtugudden has not seen the movie Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy … and, the mice in my house have a 97% preference for live traps baited with peanut butter to those baited with cheese.

Reply to  David Norman
February 4, 2015 5:46 am

97% of us know that; the other 3% are academia.

February 4, 2015 5:40 am

“Humans are constantly seeking more and more comforts, even at the cost of irreversibly damaging the planet.”
More comforts for thee is the problem.
“Less fortunate humans may, in fact, be more in tune with environmental changes and quicker to adapt, even when the changes result from over-consumption by the rich.”
The less fortunate have accepted fewer comforts, and are therefore better people.
The professor isn’t interested in the environment AT ALL. He is interested in controlling the populace, and this schtick is just a tool to hammer the public into accepting less.
“Some members of the species even resort to wholesale denial that change is well underway, even when said change is caused by their own actions.”
I see no relationship between these two thoughts. It’s gibberish.
As with most CAGW bu||$#!+ artists, he implies, by saying “denial,” that people have no right to not believe as he does. People have the right to believe anything they want to, even if what they believe is wrong. It wouldn’t be much of a right if it only allowed you to believe as others do. By saying “denial,” he has made this article a political piece, and not science.

February 4, 2015 5:47 am

Mice with their vaunted inate sense of what’s going on, regularly and predictably walk into traps baited with cheese and left for them by humans. Stupid is as stupid does. When it comes down to following instinct or thinking, thinking wins every time.

Reply to  Markopanama
February 4, 2015 7:28 am

Indeed: who makes the trap and who is trapped. I’d rather not be a mouse.

geography lady
February 4, 2015 5:48 am

This represents the entire University of Maryland educational system and their “teaching” of climate. This includes K-12, all community colleges and several full 4 year schools. I am no longer part of this system.

February 4, 2015 5:55 am

Well it’s about time some arrogant knuckle head finally put things into perspective for me. Now I understand why I venture outdoors on a sub zero day wearing my Bermuda shorts and a wool trench coat during a heatwave in July. I just can’t seem to stop over thinking!

normal new
February 4, 2015 5:55 am

February 4, 2015 6:06 am

Inaccurate analogy. You can SEE the cheese disappearing as you eat it. If you are in a maze and you have reason to suspect there’s more cheese elsewhere when this is gone, you’ll (a) either follow the maze to the cheese or (b) get some dynamite to blow down the maze, making a shortcut to the fresh cheese.
Markopanama: The earlybird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese.
About the climate— so far, the indicators that HAVEN’T been doctored by the panic-peddlers indicate that there IS climate change, but it’s within the normal functions of the planet and that (1) it’s not as bad as the panic-inducers would have us believe and (2) there’s not a lot you can do about it anyway. If you really believe that changing out the old incandescent bulbs for the new compact fluorescent bulbs will save the planet, you need help.

Crispin in Waterloo
February 4, 2015 6:11 am

This is a wonderful sentence from the article: “Some members of the species even resort to wholesale denial that change is well underway, even when said change is caused by their own actions.”
That the CAGW empire is collapsing under the weight of its own exaggerations and uncritical thinking is a fact lost on not the core adherents, but only the deceived and misled masses. The core adherents are already aware they are on thin ice, melting under the hot blasts of their own claims of ‘modelling expertise’ and contradicted by dozens of lines of evidence. They have no card let to play other than shooting the messenger.
“…is caused by their own actions.” Who could say it better? Perfect irony! The deliberate misrepresentation, the outright blatant lies, the calls even for the execution of those with more common sense than they have, all are own-goals scored in their desperate attempt to create an ‘industry’ through which they will ‘lead mankind’. There is nothing worse than a self-appointed saviour.
Lord, as a mercy to us all, save us from those who would save us!

Sun Spot
February 4, 2015 6:37 am

Professor Murtugudden has misplaced his grey matter along with his cheese. Perhaps he should study “cAGW” induced stupidity but I doubt this is possible with missing grey matter.

February 4, 2015 6:45 am

So get rid of that pesky ability to think and rationalize and you too can be ah hysterical climate alarmist. It’s really that simple. I’ll have to think about it.

February 4, 2015 6:47 am

” humans — the most evolved life form — are bogged down by their unique ability to rationalize and reason.”
Well, that explains why humans have been so unsuccessful as a species.

February 4, 2015 6:59 am

Rational, objective folks know when to say to stop pissing on my leg and telling me it’s raining!

February 4, 2015 7:02 am

To think takes lot of effort, take a break, have a rest.

Jim Clarke
February 4, 2015 7:05 am

“… humans … are bogged down by their unique ability to rationalize and reason.”
It is obvious that the good professor has freed himself from the terrible burden of this unique human ability.

george e. smith
Reply to  Jim Clarke
February 4, 2015 3:08 pm

Well what is bogging too many down is an inate inability to rationalize or reason at all.
That derives from the modern penchant for focus groups where one person does all the work and everybody gets the same grade.

Bruce Cobb
February 4, 2015 7:05 am

I believe the “professor” has been hoisted by his own canard.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 4, 2015 8:55 am

He has been assimilated into the non-rational world of politically ruled Academia. Programmed to support consensus, but encouraged to be creatively inane in order to achieve media attention and monetary reward.

Old Man of the Forest
February 4, 2015 7:09 am

I think your agenda is showing Prof:
“Less fortunate humans may, in fact, be more in tune with environmental changes and quicker to adapt, even when the changes result from over-consumption by the rich.”
I think the way the argument is supposed to go is that the rich should reduce themselves (or be forcibly reduced) to the level of the ‘less fortunate.’ If we all lived in caves then, not only would we do less damage but we would adapt earlier.
And we should be using the ‘less fortunate’ to as a warning beacon and determine their adaptive strategies. If they are not changing the way they live, the implication is the impending doom signal is not strong enough to trigger change. That would be an interesting line of enquiry but it might not give the results that would fit the narrative.
The way I read it though is that the people who are living within the theoretical capacity of the planet to support them will be quicker to adapt than those who are causing the perceived problem. So the rich suffer more from the purported damage they are causing Which is as it should be. Why is intervention to skew this natural justice required.
And redistribution to raise those less fortunate will decrease their ability to adapt so is therefore a bad thing. And it would only redistribute the overconsumption, not reduce it.
Of course all these arguments are based on Malthusian and Ehrlichian principles which are yet to e proven. If there was a gold medal for failed predictions Ehrlich would definitely be in the running.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Old Man of the Forest
February 4, 2015 8:12 am

Elimination of the extremes of wealth and poverty is a worthy goal. That does not imply ‘equalisation’ but it does remove a cause of all sorts of social ills. How does a man sleep knowing his brother is starving in the cold?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 4, 2015 9:11 am

I sleep quite well, as all my male siblings are all doing quite well. Your dictionary is broken.
Why is the elimination of the extremes of wealth a worthy goal?
One aquires wealth by pleasing other people. Apple, Microsoft, etc., achieved wealth by pleasing a lot of people. You think that is bad? People shouldn’t be pleased? Or you shouldn’t please too many? What the heck are you selling ?!?!

Old Man of the Forest
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 4, 2015 9:25 am

I guess you share your house with a lot of homeless people.
Oh, you mean everybody should lose sleep.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 4, 2015 9:57 am

No it isn’t. The only worthy goal is to increase the wealth of the poor, the wealth of the wealthy is irrelevant to that goal and therefore the gap between the rich and poor is also irrelevant.

george e. smith
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 4, 2015 3:12 pm

My sentiments same as Gamecock.
I’d be quite happy if Bill Gates had ten times as much money as he has.
At least he didn’t steal it from his neighbor and then try to sell it to another neighbor to earn his support.

February 4, 2015 7:13 am

Professor Murtugudden’s cheesy remark is typical of the mindset of those who do not understand the position of AGW skepticism.
In general, those who do not use their unique ability to rationalize and reason fail to understand the position of AGW skepticism and, more importantly, fail to understand what causes the climate to constantly be changing on planet “maze”.

February 4, 2015 7:14 am

Hmm… “Planet Maze” – I’m feeling the beginnings of another of Josh’s cartoons, cheesy as it might be.

Alan Robertson
February 4, 2015 7:18 am

Professor Murtugudde missed the mark when he said: ” humans… are bogged down by their unique ability to rationalize and reason…”. Our rational abilities are not our greatest impediment to reason, but rather, what seems to be our innate need to be right. Once we accept an idea, or draw a conclusion, no matter how obviously wrong, we will defend that idea in the face of any evidence to the contrary, even to the death. Such is the making of the true believer. This need is the tyrant’s greatest ally.

Tom J
February 4, 2015 7:19 am

Almost 40 years ago, an older, wiser man said to me words I’ll never forget: “We have problems; we use our intellect to solve them.” I think what is at work today is the tension between the individual and the group, and between reason and emotion. That period in history known as the Enlightenment championed both the individual and the faculty of reason. But it appears that we were so much older back then, we’re younger than that now. Raw emotion and group identification requires so very much less effort, doesn’t it Professor Murtugudden? (BTW: is Murtugudden really a genuine name?)

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Tom J
February 4, 2015 7:45 am

Murtugudde (see: BillW, above) is a surname with origins in the Indian subcontinent.

george e. smith
Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 4, 2015 3:15 pm

Sounds like it is German for “much too good”

Reply to  Tom J
February 4, 2015 3:41 pm

Actually, I think the author’s name is the best part of the paper. By quite some way. . .

Reply to  Tom J
February 5, 2015 3:28 am

Tom J
Long before that, Macchiavelli wrote that avoiding problems is success. Having a problem is a failure.
The AGW-scare is a failure. If we who value truth had been successful then the lack of AGW would have been sufficiently proclaimed to avoid the scare which is a problem.

February 4, 2015 7:21 am

It’s the age old game of disapproving of the sinners. This CAGW thing should not become a means to cluck disapproval at one’s fellow man and forecast Doom. Doom is a notion plucked straight from the pocket of the theologian’s straight-jacket by eco-nuts and eco-ninnies. Cut the fabulist nonsense about A rat and A maze and get back to the discussion about THE models and THE missing heat.

February 4, 2015 7:30 am
so he managed to make a book thats handed out at corporations before layoffs and mergers, etc., to relate to climate change? i think its clear that he views the world through CAGW colored glasses

Reply to  Marcos
February 4, 2015 8:11 am

Glad you found that nasty little book. I once worked for a very low class company that bragged about how they would rewrite their payment plan and impose harsher and harsher working conditions every few months. That book was one of their basic management books. We had to read it and make little reports about its faux wisdom and reflect on how upper management was so wise in blaming its frontline producers for management’s squandering their (at the time) very good reputation and finances.

Reply to  Marcos
February 4, 2015 8:27 am

The abridged version of that book is titled: Who Cheesed?
(Wasn’t Murtugudden the author?)

February 4, 2015 7:33 am

Well that nails it. I always knew the mice in my shed were smarter than me. Unfortunately they were not smarter than my cat.

Reply to  Alx
February 4, 2015 8:12 am

The rats in my shed were smart enough to break in and set up house keeping but not smart enoug to tell the difference between cheese and poisoned bait.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Alx
February 4, 2015 10:19 am

Had a similar experience once when I lived in a first floor condo. I woke up in the middle of the night and went into the kitchen, turned on the light and huchie mama there was a big old rat siting in the middle of the kitchen floor. He took one look at me, and without thinking, ran into a small hole under the cabinets. Well, I assume I am smarter than a rat so I laid out some Cheetos in a path leading the the front door which I had left open, I then hid in the hall with a broom and figured when the rat got close to the door I would swat him out. I really didn’t want to kill it, it wasn’t doing anything but being a rat. So it takes about 90 minutes and he/she pops it’s head out, eats the first Cheeto and starts making for the next. Moving very cautiously the rat took about another 30 minutes to get to the Cheeto by the door. I spang into action and the rat ran back under the cabinets. So I try again but this time I put down Cheetos leading into a tall kitchen trash pail laying on its side to which I had attached a rope. I was going to pull the trash pail upright as soon as that little bastard went into it. After about another 90 minutes he/she pops it’s head out again and every so slowly makes it to the pail, enters and I yank on the rope and pull the pail upright. Got him! I still don’t want to kill it so I go outside and tip the pail over, wouldn’t you know it the freaking rat tries to run back into the condo! But this time I got the door closed fast enough so the rat was outside and alive as I went back to bed. Next morning there on the front step was a headless rat and a cat with a big smile.

george e. smith
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 4, 2015 3:21 pm

See Tom, you “do gooders” just don’t realize that you are messing with the natural order of things.
So you spend $35,000 rehabilitating a sea lion AKA “Furbag”, and when you finally release it for the T&V lights and camera the whole world gets to watch an orca come along and snarf it up.
Nice cat you’ve got theough.

William Astley
February 4, 2015 7:35 am

The warmists propaganda machine ‘Live Science’ is the source of this irrational drivel. The warmists assume the public is incapable of understanding the difference between ‘science’ and propaganda.
Come on man. The issue of whether there is or is not an extreme AGW problem to solve and the issue of whether the increase in atmospheric CO2 is or is not beneficial to the biosphere is in no way analogous to mice chasing cheese in a maze.
There has been no warming for 18 years. The planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (positive feedback) climate forcing changes. There is no extreme AGW problem to solve. Regardless the green scams do not work (significantly reduce CO2) emissions. The cost of electricity in Germany is three times higher than the US and the Germans are now constructing coal plants. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouses at 1000 to 1200 ppm to increase yield and reduce growing time. CO2 is essential for life on this planet. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is significantly net beneficial to the biosphere. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is a good thing not a bad thing.
‘Live Science’ issues a steady stream of warmists irrational propaganda.

Human Nature May Seal the Planet’s Warming Fate (Op-Ed) (Issued by warmists propaganda machine ‘Live Science’)

Americans Will Vote for Climate-Loving Politicians, New Poll Suggests (Issued by warmists’ propaganda machine ‘Live Science’)

Fear, Ridicule, Danger: Is It Safe to Be a Climate Scientist? (Issued by warmists’ propaganda machine ‘Live Science’)

February 4, 2015 7:39 am

I think that he had mixed up his own batch of “cheese” as in the Herion/Cold medicine cocktail as that is the only explanation for this drivel

February 4, 2015 7:40 am

Pooping on The Thinker… maybe Raghu is a pigeon.

February 4, 2015 7:55 am

You have to be a real yahoo to believe most of the crap on Yahoo…

February 4, 2015 8:07 am

Uuhhh mmmm i know don’t even know how to respond to this crap. I’m sure my thinking is hindering my ability.

Reply to  logos_wrench
February 4, 2015 8:14 am

“Less fortunate humas may be more in tune with climate change.” In other words let the third world breath burning dung abd starve with a clear conscience they are righteous in the eyes of Gaia. These climate kooks need serious help.

February 4, 2015 8:09 am

Professor Murtugudden is the “Pied Piper of Propaganda”

February 4, 2015 8:10 am

Can’t wait for this logic to be applied by a few of our governments-“all you smart people shut up so us dumb leaders can tell you what to do. We can lead you out of the maze.”
I wonder how many world leaders attended his past seminars?

Jim Francisco
February 4, 2015 8:30 am

Reminds me about a comment I got from an eight year old boy when I explained my job to him. He looked up at me and said “and they pay you money for that”?
Does someone pay the professor money for that?

February 4, 2015 8:32 am

“Less fortunate humans may, in fact, be more in tune with environmental changes and quicker to adapt, even when the changes result from over-consumption by the rich.”
Implying that the less fortunate don’t think.
Keep talking, professor.

February 4, 2015 8:43 am

Perhaps he has it reversed. The mouse does not feel the impulse to go looking for the cheese until it is presented with convincing evidence that a calamity is unfolding. Humans, on the other hand, are able to do without the convincing evidence, especially if the actions to avoid the supposed calamity will also remedy other issues long deplored by those urging the action (“overconsumption by the rich”).

February 4, 2015 8:47 am

The parallels to humans and climate change are rather obvious. Humans are constantly seeking more and more comforts, even at the cost of irreversibly damaging the planet.
Less fortunate humans may, in fact, be more in tune with environmental changes and quicker to adapt, even when the changes result from over-consumption by the rich. . .

Just another Marxist wolf in faux-scientist sheep’s clothing. “The rich” are “damaging the planet,” so let’s get rid of them and keep the proletariat running around in mazes looking for scraps of cheese. Of course, we benevolent Overlords will keep the best cheese for ourselves, and a handy Cat in case the mousy proles try to get out of the maze. . .
/Mr Lynn

Mike Rossander
February 4, 2015 9:02 am

The good professor is, of course, wrong about both mice and men. Mice are no more able to “sense [a] coming change” than any other creature. Mice in a maze with an adequate source of food will stay right where they are and have no magical imperative to “find new cheese”.
Now, I will concede that adequately fed mice do still explore the maze. They might, for example, run the maze out of boredom, for exercise, to find some other desirable thing (female mice come to mind) or even to find a different food source (a cheese-only diet being no better for mice than for men). And they might find some new cheese along the way. But to say that they have identified a subtle risk and are actively seeking to mitigate it is dangerous anthropomorphism.

February 4, 2015 9:07 am

Upon further reflection i couldn’t agree more with this article. As with all leftist ideology, thinking and reason spoils the party.

February 4, 2015 9:21 am

In nature, at least mice have enough sense to mate and raise their own young. Those stuck in such gov’t social engineering experiments are less than men, less than mice.–Photos/82.jpgcomment image
Rodin, Hand of God

February 4, 2015 9:28 am

If the experiment were honest, the evil scientists would submit the baby mice to extreme maternal deprivation, give them schedule one drugs and sex changes, and reduce the feed to omit essential vitamins, fats and proteins.
It is called the Trans-rodent movement.

February 4, 2015 9:32 am

Rodin once commented on being alone in a maze, eating government cheese.
Rodin, Hand of the Devil

Reed Coray
February 4, 2015 9:35 am

Isn’t the conclusion obvious: Green Bay Packer fans should rule the Earth?

Reply to  Reed Coray
February 4, 2015 10:00 am

No Chicago Cubs fans.

February 4, 2015 9:59 am

Of Mice and Men “I’ll find a little mouse and I’ll hold him and squeeze him and love him.”

February 4, 2015 10:11 am

Anyone with access to the CO2 and temperature data, who was paying attention in first year calculus, and can extrapolate the math to the physical world, can falsify the statement that change to the level of atmospheric CO2 causes significant climate change.
See this explained and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.

Joe Crawford
February 4, 2015 11:07 am

Sounds like just another ‘Jonathan Gruber’ type trying to Gruberize us skeptic peons. Academia is full of ’em… and apparently (don’t ask me why) we support a whole passel of ’em with our taxes. I guess just so they can keep callin’ us names.

February 4, 2015 11:09 am

“Its difficult to know how to respond to that ”
Maybe not that difficult when considering and thinking about the “Hitchhicker guide to galaxy”
The all planet ordered and payed by the mice, made and tailored for the mice…:-)

Tom J
February 4, 2015 11:23 am

From the University of Maryland’s very own website I find this description of their employee’s, Professor Raghu Murtugudden (whoops, Murtugudde) PhD (and no, the ‘P’ doesn’t stand for ‘Primitive’) description of what he does. Ready? Here goes:
“As an Earth System Scientist, I study the interactions between the physical world and life and train Earth System doctors for taking the pulse of the planet, diagnose what ails the planet and prescribe cures and preventive measures. Observations of nature and life are combined with computer models to understand the functioning of the Earth System and to predict trajectories of its future evolution. …The scenarios are then provided as interactive decision-support information to stakeholders ranging from resource managers, health workers, and policy makers to the general public. The ultimate goal is to continuously monitor … with designer Earth System forecasts.”
Got that? The guy’s a planetary doctor for chrissake. That’s pretty close to a god, ain’t it? I’m thoroughly impressed. No wonder he equates mere humans to mice. Certainly, that’s how we must seem to his godyness. What an ego. I like his disingenuous description of law makers, enforcers, and regulators with the tender term, ‘policy makers’. A particularly nice touch is his monitoring, not with merely “Earth System forecasts”, no, but with “‘designer’ Earth System forecasts” – a classy, fashionable godyness!

Christopher Paino
Reply to  Tom J
February 4, 2015 12:09 pm

Does this guy work on Magrathea? I bet he likes to work with all the “fiddly bits”.

george e. smith
Reply to  Tom J
February 4, 2015 3:35 pm

Sheesh Tom J,
Ya done gone and messed with my mental image of a real guru in our midst.
And I take a very dim view of My Mother Gaia; Matriarch of all Maxwell’s Demons being abused by accusation of meddling in the natural order of things.
She merely observes and notes and doesn’t meddle ever.
Like she knows the serial number of every molecule in one mole of the atmosphere; all the way from #1 to # 6.023 E+23, so she can watch them exchange energy and move to different positions on the Maxwell Boltzmann energy distribution curve; but she would never let on to us as to which one moved to where.
I’ll have to pour some Ragu on Prof Murtuguude’s Dutch cheese experiment.

Brian R
February 4, 2015 11:25 am

I think us mice don’t think the world is changing as much as scientist are moving our cheese.

David Ross
February 4, 2015 11:35 am
John G.
February 4, 2015 12:03 pm

Well that certainly explains why the adherents of CAGW are such a weak minded lot.

Gunga Din
February 4, 2015 1:13 pm

To paraphrase an old commercial:
“… so go by Greenhound and leave the thinking to us!”

Stephen Skinner
February 4, 2015 1:14 pm

“The moral of the story is that even creatures like mice — with their simple brains — are biologically tuned to notice and rapidly respond to change, whereas humans — the most evolved life form — are bogged down by their unique ability to rationalize and reason.”
Er… where does cheese come from?
We are so bogged down that we have doubled our life expectancy, increased population seven fold, increased food production, visited almost every planet in the Solar System, speak thousands of languages. etc etc. The analogy with the maze is contrived and annoying. The solution to realising there is a cheese supply problem is check the fridge and if there is no cheese then eat something else. If there is no fridge where the maze is then leave the building and go and buy more cheese or if you feel like it make some. If you don’t know how to make cheese then either read up or watch a YouTube. Alternatively check with the neighbours or order a pizza. Or go out and eat a Pizza. And if you don’t like cheese then problem solved. Biscuits are good or even a bowel of cereal.
The Cheese Shop sketch, Monty Python

February 4, 2015 2:44 pm

Understand a couple of things, Eric.
The mentality behind climate alarmists rejects our ability to think.
It also uses words variably, so “think” to such people means “agree with them”.
(You’ll also find them using words dialogue, consult, and discuss in very one-sided ways.)
Such behaviours may be slippery game playing, but may actually be based in teachings of the ideologies they accept, often Marxism and its derivatives like “Post-Modernism” and its outgrowth “Post-Normal Science”. That comes off of the Kantian fork of Plato’s two-world’s error, Kant completely denies the efficacy of human minds. (Of course Marxists contradict themselves by claiming that a collective of those uncapable untrustworthy beings called humans is magically all-seeing and moral – that’s “dialectic logic”.
There’s also an element of thinking that words create reality. Certainly they at least claim things to be the way they want them to be, including that they speak for everyone.
The average sucker doesn’t know that, just believes what their own psychology motivates them to believe, but activists know – and choose to live the contradictions.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 4, 2015 7:00 pm

IMO this would make a good subject for a post.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 5, 2015 3:39 am

Keith Sketchley and Lewis P Buckingham
It seems you have forgotten the cheese and got lost in the maze.

Martin Mayer
February 4, 2015 3:15 pm

Poor feeble-minded homo sapiens, We should be so grateful that we have “a god who walks among us” like Raghu Murtugudde, PhD.
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
― George Orwell

george e. smith
Reply to  Martin Mayer
February 5, 2015 4:25 pm

So I thought we were now s’posed to be Homo sapiens sapiens. No I dunno why either.

Neil Jordan
February 4, 2015 5:13 pm

Rene Descartes: Cogito ergo sum. (I think, therefore I am.)
U of Maryland Planetary Doctor: Sum ergo cogito cogito. (I am, therefore I think I think.)

Gary Pearse
February 4, 2015 5:30 pm

Speak for yourself Raghu! The irony is lost on non-thinking people.

February 4, 2015 5:53 pm

Our ability to think usually prevents things like going to bed with someone who won’t respect you in the morning, or demanding cash instead of a promise the cheque will be mailed.
Notice change? Nothing has (insert appropriate scatological term here) changed in the last decade or two climate wise! Or worse, it has cooled off – has anyone noticed the arctic clippers and the blizzards (which I have to think back to the 1970’s to remember when it was common).
And people noticed change before (including climate related disasters) and started burning witches. Hey, when that started the Medieval warm period ended!

Joel O’Bryan
February 4, 2015 6:32 pm

Blatant stupidity like this from a climate scientists does two things, one intentional, the other an unintended consequence.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 4, 2015 6:36 pm

1. Confirmation for the Progressive econuts who are sheep being led to slaughterhouse.
2. Disgust in critical- thinking scientists and engineers who are crittical thinkers, and realize the mouse always goes to food. The thinking human would wonder was its little green pellets or green cubes.

David Cage
February 5, 2015 1:14 am

So he is saying that we should ignore science and the evidence and go for gut feel. So why should we, or anyone else for that matter employ him or any other scientists at all?

johann wundersamer
February 5, 2015 1:32 am

priceless question,
Sal Minella on February 4,
2015 at 7:20 am
If there are no mice left,
does the mouse universe
– the mouse universe exists. left of mice. –
and almost no one left to know about.
Sole Murtugudden, ‘more to good than’ /whom ever/
left speculating about ‘Left Mice Universe Cheese Supply’
‘to whom it concerns’.

February 5, 2015 1:47 am
February 5, 2015 2:53 am

The entire proposition is based on the premise that he is smarter than everykne else.

Penncyl Puccer
February 5, 2015 4:38 am

I only speak for myself, but I can’t help but notice that my ability to stay out of trouble and to make a reasonable accounting of myself increased in direct proportion to my ability to think.
The dream of this type of deluded academic is to have us all as easily manipulated as mice in a maze so they can bring about their version of utopia irrespective of whatever that nightmare may mean to the rest of us.

February 5, 2015 5:17 am

Is Prof Mouthful, trying to appeal to Republicans? He wants all of us to use our amygdala, instead of our cerebral vortexes. I thought progressive research shows that is what right people do!

Brad Rich
Reply to  DEEBEE
February 5, 2015 12:09 pm

My cerebral vortex is reeling.

Eamon Butler
February 5, 2015 5:43 am

This is an advert for Specsavers opticians. It always gives me a chuckle and I thought it might be appropriate.

February 5, 2015 5:51 am

Mice and other animals including humans do share 1 trait. When the cheese is all gone they start eating each other. Anyone who has forgotten to daily check their ‘tin cat ‘ will have noted that grotesquerie. The instinct to survive is strong and goes without saying or thinking for that matter.

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 5, 2015 7:23 am

It’s not difficult to know how to respond to that at all: Martin Gardner once said that when confronted with such idiocy the only sound and sane reaction is the one of roaring laughter.
The prof should leave tales of Mice and Men to capable writers.

Brad Rich
February 5, 2015 12:06 pm

It’s not nutty. Our ability to think is inhibiting our response to alarmism.

February 5, 2015 12:43 pm

It’s a good thing he doesn’t suffer from this thinking and reasoning problem and can tell us what he senses with his mouse-sense.

February 6, 2015 5:44 pm

“Our ability to think inhibits our climate response”
That would explain the frantic climate response exhibited by Leftists.