Global Warming Stupidity

Just read an interesting post on the Dilbert Blog on cognitive dissonance. In it, he mentions an interview Bill Maher did with Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg who has written a book called "Cool It". In typical bonehead fashion, Maher and his guests (Salman Rushdie, Rob Thomas (!?!?), and Jeanine Garofalo cut apart Lomborg's statements after Maher interviews him via satellite.

Maher starts off by baiting the author:
However…scientists, almost down the line, condemned your first book. And I noticed that on the blurbs on the back of your book, you don’t – you have two authors, an editor and an economics professor. If the scientists are not saying you’re cool, why should we believe anything you say about this?

Lomborg responds with:
Well, you should not believe what I say. You should believe what I’m actually quoting, namely, the U.N. Climate Panel. When we look at all these things that we’re talking about; for instance, climate change is real; it’s happening; and I’m trying to take us away from that very unproductive dichotomy of saying “It’s a hoax”/ “No, it’s a catastrophe.” It’s neither. It’s a problem.

And let me give you just one example. When we look, for instance, at temperatures rising, it means we’re going to see more heat deaths. That’s absolutely true, and everybody points that out. But, of course, with increasing temperatures, we’re also going to see fewer cold deaths, and we need to know both.

For instance, for Britain, it’s actually estimated that we’re going to see 2,000 more heat deaths in 2050. But 20,000 fewer cold deaths. It seems to me that we’re not going to make good judgments unless we know both things.


Take a look at the transcript, and you will see what I mean. Lomborg offers reasoned points, and Maher and company basically "pretend" to not understand...or they are really that stupid. You decide.

Essentially, Lomborg says "Yes, Global Warming is a problem, but it won't be the catastrophe everyone says. We need to do something about the problem, but at what cost?"

For example, if I could spend a 10th of the money being spent to combat global warming on anti-malaria programs I could save thousands of more lives. Lomborg says we should spend money on research and development of alternative fuel sources. Right now, the rich can afford the extremely expensive solar paneling and hybrid cars, but the poor can't. People in China and India can't. Those people (i.e. the large bulk of the world population) have to be given something they can use as an alternative before we can affect change, otherwise we are trying to empty a lake by using a thimble.

Global Warming is simply the Cause célèbre. The rich and famous will spout off about it, do documentaries on it, perform charity benefit concerts to "raise awareness" about it, and then the whole fad will fade away when the fickle stars move onto the next cause. I mean, Ethiopians are still starving, Africans are still dying of Aids, but those aren't "in" right now. Global Warming is "hot", to paraphrase Paris Hilton.

In any event, Bill Maher and friends need to be rudely awakened.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I saw that show! I'm guessing Maher didn't read the book and assumed he will be talking to a right wing "global warming is a hoax" nut.

Instead the guy turned to have some very valid points there. I do agree that developing alternative energy sources is very important. Let's face it - he didn't mention it by name, but we all know why. Peak Oil is probably a much more pressing problem right now than global warming - and yet no one seems to be talking about it.

Maher messed it up. He had absolutely nothing - and I really don't know why he decided to stick with that line of questioning instead of actually talking with the guy.

Bjorn was also on Colbert Report and there he actually had more insightful discussion. It's funny because Maher always seems to try to be more political, while Colbert is more interested in turning things into a joke. And yet, despite his silly interview style he actually ended up being more objective than Maher.

I also don't get why his guests didn't call him on it. It's almost as if both sides in the global warming argument were covering their ears and yelling at top of their lungs to drown out any attempt at discourse.

I'm concerned about global warming just like the next guy, but if a dude is making some well argumented points its only fair to take them into consideration - if only briefly - before dismissing them wholesale.
Steve said…
Yeah...Maher looked totally unprepared (I downloaded and watched the episode via a torrent. Shhh...don't tell the feds or one of the "...organizations whose name ends in AA"). He seemed to want to bait this guy, and the guy didn't bite.

Popular Posts