An Example of Cognitive Dissonance

Guest Post by Scott Adams

What the heck is “climate denial”? Is that even a thing?

I mentioned on Periscope the other day that I created a Sunday comic as a cognitive dissonance trap. I wanted to see if I could make an argument about the reliability of ECONOMIC models and dupe irrational people into labeling me a climate denier.

As you can see below, the experiment worked as planned. Notice the excerpt below leaves out the part of the comic that mentions ECONOMIC models.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

I know many of you don’t believe I planned this as a cognitive dissonance trap. But I did. If I do something like this again, I’ll call it out for you in advance so you can follow the experiment.

My hypothesis (to myself) was that i could make a public argument about the reliability of ECONOMIC models, and partisans on the climate debate would not be able to see the word ECONOMIC on the page. Literally.

If you see the word ECONOMIC in the comic (twice), you probably can’t find anything objectionable about the point of it. Both sides of the debate would agree that you need an economic model to make a decision. And both sides would agree that no such credible model exists.

Science tries to tell you what is true, as best it can. Economics tells you how one true thing COMPARES to another true thing on cost. Those are very different models. For example, science might tell you the sea level will rise by three inches. But you need an economic model to decide whether spending money to address that problem is better than spending money to fix other problems. If you leave out the other options for spending your limited money, you have done no decision-making analysis whatsoever.

No scientist would disagree with what I just said. Likewise, no scientist who sees the word “ECONOMIC” in my comic would find anything with which to disagree. The only way you can disagree with the comic is to (literally) hallucinate that it says something other than what it says. And that’s what happened. As I predicted.

The trigger for cognitive dissonance is this:

1. Climate scientists are 100% sure they are right.

2. My comic explains that no credible decision-making models (economic models) exist.

3. Climate scientists reading my comic realize they haven’t done the work necessary to make their case to the public because science is only the first step. Economics is the tool you need for policy-setting and decision-making. And the economics of climate change – which would necessarily compare all spending options for our limited money – haven’t been modeled in any credible way.

4. Given this set-up, a climate scientist would either need to admit that his or her career-defining opinions about climate policy are incomplete (at best), or the scientist must spontaneously generate an illusion that masks the words ECONOMIC in my comic. In other words, climate alarmists experiencing a state of cognitive dissonance can read that comic ten times and not remember seeing the word ECONOMIC when done. I mean that literally. The word ECONOMIC will be mentally invisible to anyone in this cognitive dissonance trap.

Try showing this comic to a climate alarmist friend and see how well the trap works. Look for your friend to fight like a wounded weasel to avoid talking about ECONOMIC models. And watch how quickly you get labelled a “climate denier.”

As if that is even a thing.

Enjoy.

25
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Card802
Card802

Netflix has a new show, Bill Nye Saves the World. Billy said climate change deniers have a bad case of Cognitive Dissonance.

The entire argument is ridiculous. What used to be Man caused global warming has now been simply reduced to climate change. If you deny climate change (and you can’t) you may as well be a Flat Earther.
It’s like criticizing obama with a democrat, the discussion does not involve something stupid he did, but if you are a racist or not.
The same with the man caused climate change idiots. You point out science can prove the earth’s climate changed many times prior to man, they look at you with anger, but this time it’s obviously different because….CD.

kokoda - the most deplorable
kokoda - the most deplorable

Which is why if someone states ‘climate change’, you must ask if that reference is to Natural Climate Change or Global Warming Climate Change. Then look at the face of confusion and you will know that person has very limited knowledge of the CAGW subject.

After a number of years of shoving CAGW down our throats, why did the Liberal Alarmists change the name to Global Warming? My guess is that they felt they were not gaining in the propaganda war because 1/2 the country couldn’t spell or pronounce ‘Anthropogenic’, thus ‘Global Warming’ was born. Now the Democratic voting base could understand the two simple words.

Then, after many years of having Global Warming shoved down our throats, the Liberal Alarmists knew that the planet had not been warming, thus the move to ‘Climate Change’, where every weather event nature throws at the planet is now human caused climate change. You literally have to be an idiot to believe this nonsense.

parsonanonemouse
parsonanonemouse

Ran into that with my doctor. 2 questions I asked him, how did the ice age end, and who gets to decide what the ideal world temperature is, because an eskimo and an african might disagree as to what that temperature ought to be.

MarshRabbit
MarshRabbit

Well apparently, those zany liberals at the Pentagon are onboard with this climate change thing.

“NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE-RELATED RISKS AND A CHANGING CLIMATE”
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/

http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-national-implications-of-climate-change.pdf?source=govdelivery

kokoda - the most deplorable
kokoda - the most deplorable

Rabbit…..both documents written/published in 2015, under Obama, the writers doing as they are told.

When was the last time the Gov’t told the citizens a truthful statement?

MarshRabbit
MarshRabbit

In 2017, Trump appointee “Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon’s assets everywhere”. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/trump-s-defense-chief-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge

kokoda - the most deplorable
kokoda - the most deplorable

Rabbit….is Mattis referring to Natural Climate Change “is real” or Global Warming Climate Change “is real”.

Refer to my comment at 7:12 A.M.
Now you may realize why I wrote that comment.
Has the light bulb gone on yet?

MarshRabbit
MarshRabbit

I don’t know Mattis’s position on the cause of climate change. As a military commander, the cause may not be relevant to him. His concern is how it impacts nation security and how the military should respond. Also, since he is not a politician or scientist, he may have wisely avoided commenting on the cause issue. It’s quite clear he believes climate change is occurring. In 2010, while commander of the U.S. Joint Forces Command, Mattis signed off on a Joint Operating Environment report. The lays out potential military responses to climate change. It’s alarming. And for the record, I disagree with your assertion that DoD personal write whatever they are told to by the chief executive. https://fas.org/man/eprint/joe2010.pdf

rhs jr
rhs jr

I have served at Hq SAC and “the Commanding General” always has the say and whatever it is will not contradict the General or Secretary above him.

musket
musket

MarshRabbit……take it all in stride from the PNT. They will do anything to get more budget and a larger mission footprint no matter how ridiculous it is (see diversity training)………..It was pretty solid back in the 80’s but now it is a boatload of classless clowns…..most of them civilians.

MarshRabbit
MarshRabbit

Insurance giant Lloyd’s, on climate change and risk.
“Catastrophe Modelling and Climate Change”
https://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insight/risk-insight/library/natural-environment/catastrophe-modelling-and-climate-change

kokoda - the most deplorable
kokoda - the most deplorable

Rabbit….your link is based on Models. You should be a stand-up comedian.
1. Have you ever seen the spaghetti graph by IPCC of their 105 CMIP5 Model predictions/projections of temps compared to observable data? – talk about being way off base.
2. Do you know about the Fed and their Models they use to control the economy? Do you realize they didn’t realize from their Models that Y2K and the Great Recession were a complete surprise.

Models….puuuulease

MarshRabbit
MarshRabbit

Lloyd’s has been operating since the 17th century. Miraculous they survived with such flawed models. lol

digitalpennmedia
digitalpennmedia

I studied actuarial mathematics in grad school and having sat for a couple of the exams the models that are constructed can only be made through available data, firstly (most of which has been shown to have been altered) and secondly the rest of the data is approximated via an accepted curve model…
but obviously you didnt read the report you posted since its positing the potential effects on loss and risk and not actually modeling the weather itself.

MarshRabbit
MarshRabbit

First, we’re discussing climate, not weather. And my purpose in posting climate change reports from DoD and Lloyds was to show that competent and serious organizations are onboard with climate change, not just “Liberal Alarmists”. Lloyds is in the business of assessing risk and covering loss. Climate change is on the insurance industry’s radar because it will impact risk & loss. And I always read what I post; we are living in tumultuous times when eveything must be fact-checked. It’s incumbent on us to be careful consumers of data.
https://www.soa.org/research-reports/2012/research-2012-climate-change-reports/

kokoda - the most deplorable
kokoda - the most deplorable

Rabbit….you are an idiot:
Your Ins. comparison is based on data that has been verified and replicated over time.
The IPCC Models do not show verification and replication; actually, the observable data contradicts the IPCC Models.

LOL, LOL, LOL

rhs jr
rhs jr

Models say what the modeler wants them to say.

Anonymous
Anonymous

“Climate science” isn’t science isn’t science because it it based on believing instead of knowing. That makes it something akin to religion instead of science.

See how often the phrase “I believe” is used by the adherents to it in place of “I know” or “I postulate” which would be appropriate for actual science.

DurangoDan
DurangoDan

Climate Science is an oxymoron. There is no physical or chemical property of carbon dioxide that would allow it to transfer heat back to the Earth’s surface if the surface is warmer than the atmosphere. The sun heats the surface, the surface heats the atmosphere and the atmosphere radiates to space and the cycle is in balance. Any scientist that tells you otherwise is full of shit. Scott who seems to believe that government scientists don’t lie is clueless.

overthecliff
overthecliff

The cartoon pretty much says it all. No other comments necessary.
Scott got himself out of the doghouse with this one, at least for a while.

Iconoclast421
Iconoclast421

They’ll just call you a racist and try to get you banned.

Card802
Card802

The original founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, rips into CNN about climate change.

Worth a look even though CNN labels John Coleman a climate change denier and the Weather Channel now distances itself from Mr Colman who said TWC has, drunk the koolaid.

TampaRed
TampaRed

$5 says that the Weather Channel CEO smokes a bone.

i forget
i forget

I think you grant too much credit. No need to resort to physiological overrides when simple dishonesty, basis whatever the motive, suffices to explain.

rhs jr
rhs jr

Climate models are shit compared to Solar Cycle Facts; the Sun is going into a Grand Solar Minimum and Earth is going into a Mini-Ice Age (at best) and there is nothing the atmosphere or man can do about that fact. I am so sick of people’s incorrigible ignorance about this that I could scream. If you want to continue debating atmospheric CO2 as if it matters more than Solar Cycle Radiation Variations, then you deserve to ignorantly freeze and stave like TPTB want.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading