“… 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.”
http://news.yahoo.com/human-nature-may-seal-planets-warming-fate-op-183943535.html
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.
Rational, objective folks know when to say to stop pissing on my leg and telling me it’s raining!
To think takes lot of effort, take a break, have a rest.
“… 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.
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.
g
I believe the “professor” has been hoisted by his own canard.
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.
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.
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?
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 ?!?!
I guess you share your house with a lot of homeless people.
Oh, you mean everybody should lose sleep.
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.
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.
G
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”.
Hmm… “Planet Maze” – I’m feeling the beginnings of another of Josh’s cartoons, cheesy as it might be.
/grin
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.
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?)
Murtugudde (see: BillW, above) is a surname with origins in the Indian subcontinent.
Sounds like it is German for “much too good”
g
Actually, I think the author’s name is the best part of the paper. By quite some way. . .
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.
Richard
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.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/WhoMovedMyCheeseCover.jpg
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
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.
The abridged version of that book is titled: Who Cheesed?
(Wasn’t Murtugudden the author?)
Well that nails it. I always knew the mice in my shed were smarter than me. Unfortunately they were not smarter than my cat.
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.
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.
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.
G
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.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/25/yet-another-study-shows-lower-climate-sensitivity/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/temperature-models-vs-temperature-reality-in-the-lower-troposphere/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
‘Live Science’ issues a steady stream of warmists irrational propaganda.
http://www.livescience.com/49617-human-nature-may-seal-global-warming.html
http://www.livescience.com/49650-climate-change-poll-politics.html
http://news.yahoo.com/fear-ridicule-danger-safe-climate-scientist-op-ed-184648870.html
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
Pooping on The Thinker… maybe Raghu is a pigeon.
You have to be a real yahoo to believe most of the crap on Yahoo…
Uuhhh mmmm i know don’t even know how to respond to this crap. I’m sure my thinking is hindering my ability.
“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.
Professor Murtugudden is the “Pied Piper of Propaganda”
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?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-403925/Mice-hate-cheese-new-study-reveals.html
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?
“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.
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”).
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
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.