451 comments

Getting Rich with Science

doc

An angry man by the name of Jared stopped by the blog the other day and left this beauty of a comment on my old A/C article:

Oh, you anti-air conditioning freaks crack me up. Here in Alabama I keep my a/c unapologetically set between 68-71 all year around. […] I do not care about utility bills. Some mornings I have my house so cold my windows are dripping with dew. I love my air conditioner. You guys toughing it out make me laugh. Even on 62 degree days the western sun warms it enough to bump on the air conditioning. When I’m drinking I set it even lower. Who are you air conditioning Nazis– judging your neighbors for running the a/c’s? Enjoy sweating, I guess. It’s currently 69 degrees in my house. I have two spare window units in my garage that serve as emergency backups should the central systems fail for any reason. Have fun saving $50. Buy 3/4 of a tank of gas with it or something. Cry about the climate change lie our government wants you to be afraid of so they can control you.”

 

Now, my first inclination was probably the same as yours – a deep sigh as you pull on the 20 ounce XL bloxing gloves and prepare to Deliver some Education yet again. But if you set aside the facts and just look at the feeling behind these words, I’m right there with Jared. He and I are not so different after all. If I were to paraphrase a little:

Do you outsiders really think you can tell me what to do? Fuck that. I’m going to continue doing as I see fit, and now I’ll even make a show of it, just to prove that you don’t own me.

 

In fact, defiance and standing up for your own freedom while rejecting the influence of invaders is a natural human instinct. It has been pretty useful to us in the past, and it can still come in handy today if you use that rage for a good cause.

Unfortunately for our defiant friend, the substance of the argument doesn’t stand up quite as well as the emotion. And a good chunk of our society’s self-imposed hardships come from falling into the same basic trap: becoming so convinced that you are right, that you block yourself from ever learning anything.

Looking at this example specifically, we start with a guy rightfully seeking happiness. But in doing so, he seems to have snarled in the idea of comfort and convenience as being part of happiness.

He is wrong, and both old philosophy and modern science have shown it.

Voluntary discomfort and mastery of hardship are far more powerful life boosters than avoidance. Even Jared has probably noticed that kicking the ass of a daunting challenge is more satisfying than having all of life’s luxuries flow in through an IV needle and then back out through the catheter and the bedpan.

The key is in what challenges you choose to embrace: I suggest as many healthy ones as you can handle. Especially those dished out by Mother Nature herself.

Because if you stand up and face the challenges of maintaining a stronger and more flexible body and mind and developing skills and frugality muscles you will be far less likely to come up against the more unpleasant challenges of navigating the medical system or the psychological strain of long-term debt.

Then there’s the rest of those factual errors. Lowering your dependence on climate control and other electrical extravagances isn’t about saving 50 bucks. It’s more like $100 per month, which compounds rapidly into $17,300 every ten years.

And that 17 grand doesn’t have to go into your gas tank and out through the exhaust pipe. Instead, it could buy portions of businesses and thus become an army of employees that work for you for a lifetime. That’s a solid start at becoming a millionaire, which is something best done ten bucks at a time.

Then his argument goes on to reinforce my point perfectly with the generalization about climate change. Here our man has singlehandedly outfoxed the world’s scientific community and declared the last few decades of their research to be incorrect.

The incredible irony is that he confuses climate science with a government plot to control society, when it’s actually quite clearly documented that the opposite is true: climate change doubt is a strategic misinformation campaign designed to control voters to rally continued support for the fossil fuel industry. The doubt is most prevalent in countries where the industry has close ties to the political system and the campaign has been well-funded.

For the past 20 years or so, I have watched with wonder from the sidelines as this societal experiment raged, because I’m shocked that it actually worked so well. Why is our species so easily duped by such transparent (and centuries-old) methods of tomfoolery? How are the morally good air-conditioning lovers of Alabama converted into campaigners against science itself (and unwittingly against their own best economic interests)?

How has science become a political issue, with liberals and scientists being branded together as out-of-touch elites, and a certain 50% of Real Americans united in a mistrust of the whole field?

Let’s clear this all up right now and get one thing straight:

Science is your friend. It is the most useful thing humans have ever developed, and there is absolutely no downside to it.

Regardless of your religious or political views, understanding what Science is, and using everything it offers to your advantage is the fastest way to accelerate your path to leading a rich and fulfilling life.

Science is not about ideology, or trying to cover the truth, or trying to manipulate people. That is what politics are generally about, and Science is exactly the opposite of that.

Science is all about looking for evidence through experimentation, and forever questioning itself and refusing to simply repeat dogma. By refusing to cling to existing assumptions about what “The Truth” is, Science gets us forever incrementally closer to understanding what is really going on in our world.

In other words, Science is the method that we have developed to protect us from our own tendency to cling to incorrect assumptions forever.

Luckily for all of us, we don’t have to get into the bullshit national debates about the current political hot topics (which politicians are using to control you). Instead, you can apply the principles of science to improve your own life right now.

How to Get Rich through Scientific Living

1. Understand more about yourself as the Human Animal, so you can work around your own mental weaknesses.

At the core, you were “built” for exactly one reason: to produce as many healthy babies as possible. Every finger and toe, emotion and follicle of your being has been optimized for this purpose. If you have other goals, like deeper life satisfaction or getting out of debt, you need to learn to override some of your default programming. Learning about how we are all Predictably Irrational is the key to this.

The moment you think you are a perfectly rational being is the moment you stop being able to think critically (and the moment you become easy for others to manipulate). A study of your own species by learning some basic psychology and behavioral economics is the best bit of education you can get.

2. Understand the difference between correlation and causation, and the value of the double blind test.

When society falls for massive misinformation, it is often because of our tendency to latch on to simple patterns and fall into the herd mentality.

  • “I always win at Roulette when I wear my bright red shirt”
  • “these $59.00 Chi Energy Alignment Pills always make me have a better day”
  •  “Buying this more expensive wine will provide me with a happier life”

…are common blunders that could be avoided if we were all better at conducting semi-controlled experiments upon ourselves.

And fear of doing something differently from everyone else tends to lead us all into group mediocrity, even while stepping out and doing things in your own better way is much more likely to earn you attention, respect, and greater success.

3. Instead of fighting the gifts of Science, embrace them and use them to live a better life.

Climate change skeptics aren’t really uncomfortable with the science, they are uncomfortable with the implication that their fossil-fuel dependent lifestyle is immoral and endangered. This is an incurable condition that will lead to lifelong unhappiness, because the science is not going away.

Try as you might, you are not going to out-science the scientists by reading “skeptic” websites and repeating their memes. You’d need to practice in the field for many years to make even a small new discovery, and yet the “armchair” climate scientists are fond of grabbing each news story and squawking about how the deep ocean results prove this or disprove that.

Don’t waste your time. The real scientists will just keep collecting evidence until you’re the last one standing on the shore insisting the world is flat and those sailing ships are falling off of a giant waterfall at the edge of the horizon.

Instead, I prefer to learn more about the science by letting the specialists do their work for me while sit back and read the summaries as they come in.

I then have my own time free to decide what it all means to me, and how to best deal with reality. I too wish that the world wasn’t warming so quickly, but there’s a happier way to deal with it than angry denial.  I can choose to lead a happy and engaged life in my own community and consume a bit less stuff. More money, better health and closer friendships: No loss there.

Sometimes you may still choose to blatantly burn plenty of fossil fuels despite a full knowledge and acceptance of the results. I’ve been known to drive across the country, hop on a jet, or even eat a steak. But I get to do it with the understanding that it is a tradeoff, instead of hiding behind a plastic shield of wimpy denial.

The extra bonus is that understanding some of the workings of our environment has greatly reduced my craving for BMWs, which has saved me at least $250,000 so far. It also brings me great optimism – I think the world’s transition away from sloppy and expensive fossil fuels is the biggest business opportunity we have yet stumbled across. The progress and prosperity involved will keep the stock market and the economy booming for more than the rest of my lifetime.

Although I now have this blog to share my own ideas about better living, its effects are obviously very finite. But there’s no need to fret about what the rest of the world is doing, because that is outside of my circle of control. Worrying is 100% counterproductive, and it was psychological studies that helped figure out that very principle.

Science is bound to deliver news that is sometimes convenient (the news that sex is very good for your health, for example), and sometimes less so (that fossil fuels and alcohol are not).

But knowledge is power, and power means the opportunity to make the best of your own life, which includes dominating on the financial side of things, as well as just the ability to go to bed with a broad smile on your face each night.

Science is the way you get knowledge – nothing more, and nothing less. You’re free to fight it at your own peril, but I’ll be hanging out here in my own Life Laboratory keeping the grand experiment going as long as possible.

 

Further Reading: An earlier MMM Classic called Safety is an Expensive Illusion digs into some more examples of how scientific thinking about everyday life decisions and risk can lead to huge profits.

  • aw October 9, 2014, 8:14 am

    This is your best article EVER! You say so much in just a few words. That shows true understanding of the topic. My favorites are: “climate change doubt is a strategic misinformation campaign designed to control voters to rally continued support for the fossil fuel industry. The doubt is most prevalent in countries where the industry has close ties to the political system and the campaign has been well-funded.” and “Science is not about ideology, or trying to cover the truth, or trying to manipulate people. That is what politics are generally about, and Science is exactly the opposite of that.” and optimism: “I prefer to learn more about the science, what it means, and how to best deal with reality. I too wish that the world wasn’t warming so quickly, but there’s a happier way to deal with it than angry denial. I can choose to lead a happy and engaged life in my own community and consume a bit less stuff. More money, better health and closer friendships: No loss there.” Thank you!!!

    Reply
  • Tricia Dunlap October 9, 2014, 8:22 am

    For those who think addressing climate change is a liability and cost to business, I offer this:

    In September, 2014 a coalition of leading corporations came together to call for government policies to address climate change, including a price on GHG emissions. They aren’t doing this because it feels good. They’re doing it because it is good for business.

    “The data from the [We Mean Business] report provides compelling evidence that smart climate action make business sense. Analysis of data over the past two years shows almost 1,450 companies reported carbon savings of just over 420 million metric tons through investment of over US$140 billion in low carbon projects.”

    Read more here: http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/news-and-blogs/we-mean-business-coalition-and-report-launched-at-climate-week-nyc/

    Reply
  • Jeremiah Robinson October 9, 2014, 9:27 am

    A little push back on the literature about the following quote:

    “Both old philosophy and modern science have shown that this is counterproductive: voluntary discomfort and mastery of hardship are far more powerful life boosters than avoidance.”

    While I generally agree with this (it’s true for me), I’m a personality study geek, and I think that generalizing here may be overextending the reach of the lit. One personality style in particular – the Enneagram type 7 – gets their long-term happiness from comfort and positive interactions. For people of this type, establishing a comfortable home with predictable habits is a genuine source of happiness.

    This person is probably not an Enneagram 7, and even if he was long term climate change would likely spoil his party.

    I’m curious if you have many 7s as readers, and how their personalities affect how they interact with your advice.

    Reply
    • Mr. Money Mustache October 12, 2014, 3:16 pm

      That’s a cool point, Jeremiah. Then again, I also get lots of happiness from my comfortable home and positive interactions. But I still require some challenge to avoid a rapid slide into Depressed Slob status.

      My theory (not scientific, at least until we can test it) is that many people who think they like comfort would actually live happier lives by strategically pushing that comfort zone out on a regular basis.

      Reply
      • Eldred October 29, 2014, 8:36 am

        I’m not totally disagreeing, but I remain…unconvinced. I’ve always joked that my idea of ‘roughing it’ is a hotel room without a TV… :-)

        Reply
  • Keith Riggle October 9, 2014, 9:31 am

    You describe science and politics as being opposites, but you can’t ignore the fact that science has been politicized, as well as bought by the major corporations. The ideal situation is science ” looking for evidence through experimentation, and forever questioning itself and refusing to simply repeat dogma,” but it’s human nature to twist and bend science for selfish interests. We’ve seen it happen with smoking, diets, pesticides, GMOs, medicines, and of course climate change. Numerous books and papers have been written about how science has been manipulated and perverted; here are just a few that focus on my area of interest, medicine: “Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients,” by Ben Goldacre, “Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Health Care,” by Peter Gøtzsche, “Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits,” by David Lewis, and ” Merchants of Doubt,” by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway. Science usually corrects itself eventually, but not after a lot of people have been harmed.

    Reply
  • Marcia October 9, 2014, 9:38 am

    Only $50? I read the Prudent Homemaker. She lives in Las Vegas. She had three days last week where it was cool, so she was able to turn off her AC (note: I think she has it set at 82 or thereabouts).

    Per the electric company, she saved $65 in those THREE DAYS.

    Reply
  • paul October 9, 2014, 9:53 am

    “Even Jared has probably noticed that kicking the ass of a daunting challenge is more satisfying than having all of life’s luxuries flow in through an IV needle and then back out through the catheter and the bedpan. The key is in what challenges you choose to embrace: I suggest as many as you can handle.”

    MMM – might be a good argument for more than one child. :)

    Reply
  • Ben Luthi October 9, 2014, 10:17 am

    Science is not infallible. Scientists and researchers do what they can with the information they have. Some of them have their own biases that tend to add a little color here and there, but scientific theories are not thrown out there based on the whimsical political leanings of some guy in a lab coat. They’re based on the evidence as we now see it. Sure, things change over time as we discover new things, but it’s funny to me to see some guy on a laptop think he has the inside curve on men and women who dedicate their lives to this stuff.

    Reply
  • alex c October 9, 2014, 11:19 am

    i just don’t understand the motivation of that person to leave that type of comment. no one here is FORCED to read this blog, nor is it ‘the law’ to follow the advice of MMM. oh well…. ‘Murica!

    Reply
  • Conservation Mark October 9, 2014, 2:27 pm

    Just when I think that MMM is a sober independent prudent freedom-loving purple conservationist just like me, he tosses a tiny Molotov cocktail of a CO2 corporate conspiracy theory into his corner of cyberspace, normally filled with quiet fun, useful ideas, and sound advice. These little bombs always result in a lot of tired, fallacious arguments being tossed back and forth, especially obvious appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, and armies of straw men. Other than the arguments that my Logic 101 professor would have given an “F”, both sides got in some good shots. But in the end the barricades are still up, with both sides congratulating themselves.

    To you tired revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries, I have good news. You can stop fighting over CO2 emissions, because they will go down regardless of who wins the argument over climate. Fossil fuels are becoming so expensive, we will have to conserve. Forget estimates of reserves, which change all the time, and look at the hard facts. I remember from childhood huge sections of Los Angeles covered in oil wells and petroleum even oozing out of the ground and gas bubbling in certain places. In one minute, I was able to grab statistics from eia.gov showing how dramatically the cost of fossil fuel production has risen since then, and the trend is accelerating. In 1960, the average petroleum well cost $55,000 to drill. In 2006, the average was $2 million. In 2007, $4 million. In 1960, wells cost $62/foot, in 2000, $142/foot. In 2007, $574/foot. These are all inflation adjusted dollars. In other industries, production costs go down over time, often dramatically. We have simply pumped all the easy stuff out and are spending more and more to keep it flowing. Whether it ends in my child’s lifetime or my grand or great-grandchildren’s lifetimes is unclear, but the end is clear. In the meantime, the price of fossil fuels will remain high and go higher still. The invisible hand is already beginning to reduce emissions. The same site states that energy-related carbon emissions have declined in the last 5 of 7 years- without ridiculous taxes or credit-trading schemes.

    Petroleum makes awesome fuels. I can drive 500 mile in our Prius in speed and comfort, stop for 5 minutes to refuel for under $30, and do it over and over again. MMM can get in an airplane and take a leisure trip to another continent in half a day. Gas-fired power plants produce pretty darn clean energy whether or not there is sun or wind, do not require destruction of habitat for a dam, do not require government subsidies, do not kill birds with giant spinning blades, and do not irradiate the land after an accident or natural disaster. Maybe some day we can genetically engineer pond scum to produce affordable diesel or jet fuel, but it has not happened yet.

    Instead of arguing endlessly about global warming, climate change, communist conspiracies or corporate conspiracies, let us accept the inevitable prudence of conservation. Did I mention how much fun our new electric car is?

    Reply
  • Matth October 9, 2014, 2:41 pm

    I’ve read through this article a couple of times, and I really wish you’d elaborated point No. 2 more. How do you use double-blind or semi-controlled experiments? Do you have examples? Maybe I’m not connecting some of the other points you made in the article with this one.

    Reply
  • math teacher October 9, 2014, 6:22 pm

    The only thing of value I can add to this discussion is to urge everyone not to genuflect before science. Sure, science has done amazing things for human kind, but it is still only a human invention. What science studies is not manmade, certainly, but the practice itself is thoroughly human. That means it can be only as lofty as its best practitioner and it can be as lowly as its most diabolical (doesn’t science teach us how to make a dirty bomb? hasn’t science brought us “germ” warfare?). Don’t believe that “scientists” are somehow better people. They’re no different than any of us. They are us. And like all of us, they are sometimes honest and altruistic, even noble. Sometimes they are scheming, greedy, even biased. So sure: celebrate science, promote it, enjoy it. But don’t bow down before it in worship. It’s only human.

    Reply
  • John Connor October 9, 2014, 8:52 pm

    There is absolutely no downside to science?

    Exhibit 1: nuclear bombs
    Exhibit 2: Napalm
    Exhibit 3: Skynet / Terminator

    It’s all good until the robots take over. Have fun biking around your elite Colorado town while trying to dodge heavily armed cybernetic death machines.

    Reply
    • Druid October 12, 2014, 2:50 pm

      I love the name choice lol!

      Reply
  • Doug October 9, 2014, 8:55 pm

    Great posting, MMM! The comments section exploded quickly into a discussion about climate change, so I don’t feel the need to elaborate on that subject. Does anyone remember a topic about who we are, and noticed the science and engineering types were quite over represented here? That further reinforces the idea MMM has been trying to tell us here, that a good understanding of science can save you a pile of money AND ultimately lead to a better quality of life.

    As for my comments of Jared’s rant about air conditioning, I use air conditioning in my home and car sparingly and make no apologies for it. During the summers here in Southwestern Ontario it can get hot and muggy so rather than fight it I prefer to acclimatize to it somewhat. I seldom keep my place cooler than 24 degrees C (mid 70s Fahrenheit) and that’s not solely to save money or the environment but because if it were much cooler it would be uncomfortable! Why spend extra money to be too cold? Similarly, in the colder months I acclimatize to the colder weather and seldom heat the place above 20 degrees C. Refer to a posting in early 2013 by MMM about that oil well in your pants, in other words bundle up. So what do I do with the money I save? It helped me to build up my portfolio enough to retire in the first place, and now is spent on doing things I want to do like travel or hobbies. Yup, I’m really depriving myself by using heating and air conditioning sensibly.

    Reply
  • Garth October 9, 2014, 9:19 pm

    Great article MMM. Sure stirred the hornets nest this time, which is all good. Best blog I ever read on the subject of science and how it really works was written by physicist Tom Murphy. It can be found here http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/10/when-science-brings-bad-news/#more-1257

    Reply
  • Leslie October 10, 2014, 8:21 am

    What is the worst that can happen if climate change is not real but we adopt more conservative living habits?

    Reply
  • MMM, I'm calling you out! October 10, 2014, 10:03 am

    You have promoted Marks Daily Apple in the past and now you acknowledge that eating steak is blatantly wasteful of fossil fuels. I’m very happy and encouraged that science pummeled you into submission on that point. I would like to go a little further. Science also allows us to map out a foods’ nutrients and minerals. Science has given humans clever ways of growing a wide variety of actual foods in a wide variety of climates and locations. We don’t need animal flesh to be healthy! Humans are creative and adaptive yet we still bind, torture , and kill BILLIONS (US billions) of animals each year like we are Wichita’s BTK. Because humans are also gluttonous consumers, we’ve had to ramp up the slaughtering to keep up with demand. These animals are now pumped full of an unnatural, low-quality diet, hormones and antibiotics like they are Build- a-bears and that makes them toxic to our bodies. The whole process (watch Earthlings) is terribly disrespectful to animals, our earth and to our own bodies.

    Reply
    • Mr. Money Mustache October 10, 2014, 10:37 am

      I totally agree. To defend Mark a little, he is in favor of fancypants local grass-fed cows that are known by their owners. But you’re still slaughtering and eating a fellow mammal, which is much further up the consciousness continuum than a plant or a bug. And still consuming far more resources to feed our luxury pampered asses.

      The solution I’m trying out for now is to promote a lifestyle that is only SLIGHTLY less ridiculous than average. This makes it attainable for wimps including myself, and yet with some thought a wealthy person can still reduce consumption by about 75% when measured in killowatt-hours, gallons, therms, tonnes of C02, dollars, etc. The remaining 75% can then be used to buy one’s own freedom at a young age.

      I think it’s counterproductive to shoot for perfection when you’re trying to create such a big change among such a large and diverse group of people, which is why I try it this way.

      Reply
  • Becky October 10, 2014, 1:28 pm

    I’m staying neutral on the actual topic, but don’t forget that science, just like every damn thing in the universe, can be taken and twisted to fit an agenda. Both sides of the proverbial ‘aisle’ are equally guilty. Just because something is labeled ‘science’ doesn’t mean it hasn’t been spun like cotton candy. I’ve seen that word used as justification to insult someone’s intelligence for disagreeing when the actual results were far from conclusive. Just sayin’

    Btw, love the blog. It made me convince my husband to sell our huge house downsize, pay down debt and become financially bad ass. He thought I lost mind at first, but he’s come around. We’re smack in the middle of our overhaul, but it’s all coming together. Keep the posts coming!

    Reply
  • Lisa October 10, 2014, 1:40 pm

    I can’t believe there is still a debate occurring about climate change. I can’t believe that people still think they get an opinion on this – opinions are for tastes and preferences not facts. There is a great piece by the comedian John Oliver on the climate change debate, and I quote: “You don’t need people’s opinions on a fact”. See this link for the very funny clip: http://www.defendourclimate.ca/2014/05/no-debate-on-climate-change/

    I see this anti-science movement happening in medicine too. Don’t get me started on homeopathy…sigh.

    Reply
  • Pat October 12, 2014, 5:54 am

    Thoughts on various comments:

    Perfectly evolved? Read “Your Inner Fish” by Neil Shubin and you will realize how badly “designed” we are.

    Climate change? Well, here it is getting warmer, we did not have all these ice storms when I was a kid (i.e. here that means warmer winters , that freezing rain should have been snow). But this is one little spot. Just as important as warming temperatures, in some ways, is the amount of CO2 dissolving in oceans and making them more acidic. Biologists can see the difference between acid lakes and buffered lakes (not just acid rain, mostly dependent on underlying rock). Of course climate changes, always has. The question is, what effect are we having on top of the natural changes? And what are the social implications? Read “Climate Wars” by Gwynne Dyer.

    Overpopulation? Have fewer children, and have them later – do the math. Start with 1 female and calculate how many females there will be in 300 years if there is one female child who is born when the mother is 20 versus 25 versus 30 versus 35 versus 40. Interesting. Try it again with 2 female children born at the various maternal ages, and give various gaps between the 2. Also interesting. Oh, and this is how population biologists generally do it for wild populations, they analyze one sex at a time. If you can only do 1 (limited resources) do the females, they are the ones making the eggs/babies. And read some population ecology and learn the difference between r and K type species – we are flexible, we can be either, but K is nicer in the long run when it is your own species being discussed. r-type tend to have nasty population crashes, for various reasons.

    Double-blind? Hard to do, but best results. Any textbook on experimental design will discuss this – also what alpha and Beta measure (important), and what are error and confidence limits. Sample size matters too. One of the most difficult things for people to accept is uncertainty. Students in the various sciences have to learn this, but the general public seems to expect certainty from science when one of the basic things about science is we know that we are not certain about things.

    General improvement of understanding of science? There is the “Science Daily” web site (http://www.sciencedaily.com/)- lots of different things covered.

    Reply
  • freedom52 October 12, 2014, 10:43 am

    MMM, History has shown us that scientists have often been mistaken. You have to take some and leave some. That the world is flat was proclaimed by scientists. And to this day the prevailing scientific teachings still want to make us believe that we have evolved from monkeys, despite having no proof, but have no issue with ridiculizing Christian beliefs.

    Reply
  • Druid October 12, 2014, 12:03 pm

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

    If 1000’s of fossils are not proof then I don’t know what is. Evolution is not up for productive debate, unless you believe these fossils are from hell spawns? You can see the evolution of many species through analyzing fossils. I really want to know the conspiracy theory behind these bones that people in organized religions believe? Perhaps this information will help me see the light.

    I would be much more willing to convert if the theory was god created the peaceful apes in the form of Adam and Eve and the devil changed us into resource consuming planet killers. Or perhaps god created the laws of biology with the intention that we would one day evolve in to the all important human form we are today.

    There is a reason Islam is out pacing western religions in growth, and that is our education is making it harder to swallow the outdated beliefs. Either religions will incorporate new ideas or they will slowly dissolve away.

    Reply
  • cmp October 13, 2014, 5:39 am

    By far the best site for global warming scepticism: http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    Reply
  • Paul Sanderson October 13, 2014, 8:59 am

    Science is one of the best things things humans ever developed. Unfortunately scientists need to make a living and a lot of that is based on funding from government and big business. So politics is involved, which is why many of us just don’t trust everything scientists tell us.

    Back in the 1970’s, when I was in senior school scientists were telling us we were heading for a mini ice age as temperatures were trending down. In the big scheme of things the 70’s isn’t that long ago. If it isn’t the sun that is causing climate change why was it reported a couple of years ago that all the planets in the solar system have been heating up, despite Earth being the only one with man made CO2?

    Remaining sceptical, but enjoying your blog!

    Reply
    • Mr. Money Mustache October 13, 2014, 11:35 am

      Many people have made this same general comment: “scientists are prone to political/business interference”.

      It is true, but MUCH LESS SO than almost any other profession. So while you might look for the funding behind any one experiment, when a an overwhelming consensus arises (as with evolution or climate change), you can pretty much place your bets on the side of this consensus.

      You may not ALWAYS be right, but on average you will be on the correct side, which is the best you can hope for – place your bets wisely and quickly, hedge accordingly, and prosper.

      Reply
  • Scott October 13, 2014, 12:19 pm

    Hey Mr. MMM,
    Love your site.
    Science is just a reflection of God’s awesome creation. God and Science are completely compatible because its God that created the mechanisms of the Universe. God is also capable of miracles beyond what Science can explain. Jesus is the main example of this, the New Testament tells us God became man (Jesus) so that he can experience our suffering. Through Gods amazing love, Jesus bore our sins on the Cross so that we can have external life. Its not about a religion, its about God’s love for you. All you have to do is repent (for all have sinned) and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. The New Testament is filled with this truth. Jesus said ” I am the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through me”
    Read the New Testament and in it you will find that Jesus was also the ultimate “badass” for that time in history while promoting love for all people who come to him, and good stewardship of the environment.

    Reply
    • Mr. Money Mustache October 13, 2014, 12:32 pm

      Good thoughts, Scott – I like to hear that religion and science do have plenty of common ground!

      Reply
    • Doug October 14, 2014, 2:14 pm

      That’s a different take on the subject of Christian religion. A lot of people, myself included, have been turned off by Christian religion as it has taken on an extreme right wing agenda that is against anything to do with preservation of the environment, including denial of human made climate change. It supports continued growth, consumption, and believes that anyone who doesn’t agree with their ideas is a Godless liberal. It’s no mystery to me why Western society is becoming more secular.

      Reply
      • Scott October 14, 2014, 5:55 pm

        Hey Doug,
        I don’t want to keep harping on this on this site, as I enjoy it as a means to gain ideas on how to grow my stash. However you make a great point….
        I agree with you. The “Christian Religion” is exactly what it is – a man made “Religion”.
        Jesus teaches against religion! And he teaches good stewardship of everything including money, resources, environment etc. The problem, especially in the West is that politics AND man made religion have gotten in the way of these simple facts – that are found in the NT.

        Reply
  • Chris October 14, 2014, 1:26 pm

    Here’s what bothers me about the so-called climate debate.

    Can you think of any other issue where the nay-sayers demand 100% measurable/irrefutable evidence to do something smart??? Isn’t the fact that it’s “LIKELY” that man is contributing to global warming enough to make you want to do something about it? I understand there a small percentage of idiots who think that thousands of research papers and mountains of data are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to…, actually I don’t know what those idiots think. Anyway, even worse are the millions of reasonable moderates who simply say, “well, they’re not 100% sure so I’m going feel just fine driving my Yukon to work and back every day.”

    Would you apply this logic to anything else??

    Hey, studies show that smoking only results in a 50% chance of me suffering a long miserable death before the age of 65!!! It’s not 100%, so EFF science. I’m smoking up!!!

    Reply
    • Cliff October 16, 2014, 9:17 am

      No one is doing anything like that. The cost to attempt to mitigate climate change would be enormous, and any such attempt would likely be completely ineffective in any case. The question is whether you are sure enough of global warming, and sure enough of the enormous costs of global warming, that you want to spend trillions of dollars to try to prevent or delay it.

      Reply
  • green_knight008 October 14, 2014, 2:58 pm

    One point I would make regarding science/politics. Having worked in a federally funded university research department for several years, I feel obligated to point out that in America politics is certainly entwined with science. This is due to the concept of Federal Research Grant money. If you can’t get it, you probably won’t be conducting research, you’ll be teaching-which unfortunately is often regarded as “lesser” work. Hence, the “political” issues of the day (and this would include climate change, global warming, global cooling, whatever you wish to call it) do get attention that may well be over and above what they deserve. It’s also fair to consider that when said politicians (or even private organizations) who are funding your research are looking for a conclusion that supports their position, you might feel some pressure to get the “right” results. Is this good science? No. Does this happen? Yes, absolutely it does. Unfortunately science appears to be no less vulnerable to the power of money than any other historical organization. Not saying that you should therefore ignore science, but there is plenty of junk science produced. One example could well be science that has looked at ~100 years of temperature and weather patterns and drawn a conclusion when the data set they have is far less than .01% of the total data set over the life that scientists estimate the world has had-especially considering the advances that have been made in the measurement of said data in that 100 years or so. It’s difficult for me to believe that either side of the argument actually has enough data to say conclusively that they are right or wrong.
    But really that’s irrelevant to me, I’ll continue to pursue energy efficiency and green energy because it improves my personal sphere of control, as well as enriching my life financially. Those to me are the clear, mathematically proven benefits of this sort of efficiency.

    Reply
  • Cliff October 16, 2014, 9:15 am

    Science clearly shows that alcohol IS good for you. In fact, even those who consume 6 or more alcoholic beverages PER DAY have (significantly) lower overall mortality rates than teetotalers.

    Reply
  • Tetsuya Hondo October 16, 2014, 1:11 pm

    MMM, this may be the best thing you’ve ever written. Well done, sir.

    Understanding the scientific method and how to apply it, combined with an understanding of how your brain works (and in many situations, doesn’t work) gives you a massive leg up on all the other primates out there!

    Reply
  • Guest Poster October 17, 2014, 12:40 pm

    I agree with what you’re saying. I would, however, suggest that we all stop capitalizing “Science” when it shouldn’t be. It comes off as a religion when you capitalize it unnecessarily (not that I have anything against religion…science just isn’t one).

    Reply
  • Jerry October 17, 2014, 12:58 pm

    From Alabama and I agree with your takedown. Except the $100/mo. My utilities only run 130ish per month, I doubt stopping my ac would remove 100 from that. Otherwise keep on!

    Reply
    • Mr. Money Mustache October 19, 2014, 5:33 pm

      Good to hear – but how are your utilities compared to the average Alabaman at your income level? You might already be doing much better than most of your neighbors. I read somewhere that the average annual cooling bill is something like $1200 in that area(!)

      Also, my comment about electricity was more of a general idea – it includes other savings like less laundry, line-drying clothes, LED/CFL bulbs, not keeping that Garage Beer Fridge going, and other upgrades. These are how my own family’s bill ends up in the low $20s per month now, while similar size houses in my area can burn $150.

      Reply
  • ImaginaryNumber January 8, 2015, 11:39 am

    lizzie October 7, 2014, 2:44 pm
    I once read that the term “climate change” was basically invented and promoted by Frank Luntz, a Republican political consultant who specializes in researching which terminology will help frame the debate in a way that’s favorable to conservatives. This seems consistent with what I read:

    @Lizzie
    Frank Luntz may have popularized the term ‘climate change’, but he certainly didn’t invent it. You may know of the IPCC, which has been the main international reporting body for Climate Change. It was organized in 1988. Guess what the last two letters of IPCC stand for? Yup — (Intergovernmental Panel on) CLIMATE CHANGE.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

    Reply
  • Bruno January 28, 2015, 1:26 pm

    MMM, liked a lot your blog and all the stuff here. Still working on my budget aiming the 10 year retirement plan.
    But when the subject is A/C I can´t follow your tip.
    Living in the tropics like I do (Brazil,), temperatures reach 100 degrees easilly. So, I am really not triyng to get rid of it, even considering the US$ 70 it costs me on my bill every month.
    But, the one thing I do is to keep only one A/C at my bedroom. No desk, and no television avaiable, so I can only read or use the internet when I am confortable cold!
    I hope I can get my savings to 65% even with this. Right now me and my wife make 70k dolars per year and save 23k…
    Right now I am focusing o cuting my cable plan, figuring out how to downsize my 400 grocery bill and preparing my spirit to sell my motorbike.
    All done I think I can reach 50% of income saving. Then it will be the rough path to achieve the 65% goal that will lead me to retirement with 40 years.
    THanks for all the tips!

    Reply
  • Stephanie February 24, 2015, 5:38 pm

    To be fair, there is actually a pretty strong community of actual scientists who are skeptical of climate change, especially of the IPCC. I too thought everyone who was a climate change denier was anti-science until a friend convinced me to take a closer look at the data. I’m a physicist myself (also an environmentalist and pretty liberal) so I respect data and thought it was a good idea to look at it for myself. I still have a lot of learning to do on the topic and I think more data is needed to know for certain, but at this point I would label myself a climate change skeptic as well. I’m also very disturbed by the way some “scientists” have manipulated or massaged data to support the CO2->DEATH idea and used the “skeptic” label as a way of closing down the scientific method. Science is never a closed book and the scientific community should ALWAYS be skeptical of it’s own ideas. Being certain of something being true is what leads to shit like epicycles instead of realizing, hey, maybe the earth isn’t at the center and then this entire set of data is so much easier to explain.

    That is sort of what is happening in climate modeling today, in my opinion. There are a bunch of different natural cycles (ocean, air cycles, etc) that interact with the climate that have various periods. I saw a talk at the APS (American Physical Society) March meeting in Denver last year by a NOAA scientist that showed how you can easily and successfully model the global mean temperature if you incorporate those cycles, without using a large CO2 forcing, which is what makes CO2 problematic. Whereas, modeling the temperature over the last few years with CO2 as the main contributor to climate change has been backing the models into stranger and stranger territory, since the temperature has remained flat but CO2 has been increasing in the last decade. I think this is a modern example of epicycles, basically, I think, in many ways, climate change within the scientific community has become like a religious belief, on which anyone skeptical is labelled a heretic. It is on the one hand hilariously ironic how very human scientists are, and on the other hand, sad that science itself is subject to the same follies of humanity as everything else human endeavor to do. YES HUMANITY, SCIENTISTS ARE JUST PEOPLE, SORRY :(

    I really wish that the political, monied, and religious interests who have a foot in the “CO2 is our friend” door would just keep their mouths shut on the topic so the “debate” could be done in the halls of science instead of Congress, where nothing scientific or logical ever happens. However, good scientist should remain skeptical of their ideas at all times and the idea of shutting down debate on science has always been a bit abhorrent to me, regardless of the topic. This doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons to do some of the same things that decrease CO2, but sometimes better environmental stewardship would have us spending our money elsewhere to protect the environment in a more efficient manner than focussing solely on CO2, which may not be as much of a problem as the IPCC would have us believe.

    Reply
  • kindoflost September 1, 2016, 2:52 pm

    For some reason, #2 (correlation is not causation), made me think of the Thomas theorem: “When men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”. In short: if you think you won’r be able to retire, you won’t.

    Reply
  • Yard Work December 25, 2017, 9:39 pm

    Wow, in 2017 this comment thead is even more bananas in retrospect! Now even the President is anti-science, if that’s even possible. What a world!

    I’m thinking if I can retire in less than 5 years using info from this blog and others, I’ll have the skills to weather the end result of a manipulated, polarized and terrified voting public.

    And if everything turns out ok I guess I’ll just be retired.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

To keep things non-promotional, please use a real name or nickname
(not Blogger @ My Blog Name)

The most useful comments are those written with the goal of learning from or helping out other readers – after reading the whole article and all the earlier comments. Complaints and insults generally won’t make the cut here, but by all means write them on your own blog!

connect

welcome new readers

Take a look around. If you think you are hardcore enough to handle Maximum Mustache, feel free to start at the first article and read your way up to the present using the links at the bottom of each article.

For more casual sampling, have a look at this complete list of all posts since the beginning of time. Go ahead and click on any titles that intrigue you, and I hope to see you around here more often.

Love, Mr. Money Mustache

latest tweets