Scott Adams Discusses Climate Change

Scott Adams on Twitter: “#ClimateChange Challenge:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Scott Adams Discusses Climate Change

  1. Anon says:

    Who might be the guy in the white coat with the goatee?

  2. feathers says:

    Fantastic! Yes, Tony is 100% the best, most persuasive skeptic around for all the reasons Scott Adams mentions. Thank you Tony and never stop. We need 10,000 Tony Heller’s to stop Borg!

  3. Anon says:

    Here is an interesting article about what happened to Judith Curry when she began to look at both sides of the argument:

    Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues

    Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black¬board.

    It will be interesting to see what happens as others are exposed to the actual data vs the narrative.

  4. arn says:

    97% of all “experts” and journalists agreed that Hitlery would win by a landmile.

    97% of hollywood stars(all of the hardcore feminists,of course) did not knew what Weinstein was doing,while singer Courtney Love was talking about it 14 years ago though she was just a part time actor.
    Her acting carreer hit the wall about the same time she started talking about it.
    (similar “carreers” can be found among climate scientists)

    97% of climate scientists agree that Hansens predictions were 97% right though his predicted sea level rise is 99%+ wrong(as everything is that can be measured eg. polar bears)

    97% of hollywood stars,journalists,”experts”,CEO’s and politicians agree
    that islam is the religion of peace though 1400 years and the prophets behaviour and even the meaning of the word islam prooves them wrong and
    though non muslims in indonesia,nigeria,ethiopia,greek turks,armenians , coptic people and the slaves in mauretania,lybia and sudan absolutely disagree .
    But hundreds of years of experience means nothing compared to educated theoretical prostitutes in the west who never suffer the consequences of their preachings .

    • Anon says:

      It is actually a deft sleight of hand.

      Q: Did John commit the crime?

      A: The Jury said he did.

      You can answer that way almost instantaneously, with very little effort or thinking. While it might “appear” to answer the original question, it actually answers a question that was not asked.

      This was the John Cook (97% Consensus Paper) stratagem. It is actually pretty brilliant in a way, as it shifts the discussion from the actual science, to the statistics, where it is far easier to muddy the waters.

      I point this out when I get hit with the 97% consensus argument. Opinion is not proof, or science.

      • Disillusioned says:

        John Cook, the ex-cartoonist exposed.

        I have noticed ignorant believers that are new to CAGW Apologetics will link to Cook’s propaganda site. But, the veteran cultists still stuck on CAGW voodoo science usually avoid that mistake and now simply link to NOAA and NASA. (They have yet to accept the possibility of severe credibility issues including tampering with the climate record.)

        • Anon says:

          I just noticed you can go on for hours arguing about the statistical studies of Cook and Oreskes and whether they are legitimate or not. With the illusion that you are getting closer to some resolution about AGW; but in reality you are really debating another topic entirely. In the simple example above, that would be: “Did the jury find him guilty?” which has nothing to do with whether John committed the crime. So, the whole discussion is a diversion or clever sleight of hand.

          • Disillusioned says:


            I didn’t mean to dilute your point, re: your sleight of hand example. I agree. That question was avoided, and opinion is not science.

            I read the articles in the past and came away with the clear understanding Cook’s ‘study’ is utter trash. The articles from WUWT alone tore him up.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            The appropriate scientific reaction to Cook is:

            Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”.

          • Anon says:


            No, I did not think that… just that I was not clear with the example. And until I did start thinking about it, I would sometimes get taken off course by that line of (faulty) reasoning.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Thanks Anon. You were clear.

            I see that argument as a form of manipulation that facilitates faulty reasoning. I suspect we have all fallen for that type of manipulation a time or two… or many times – my Introduction to Logic class was a long time ago. One side effect since my disillusionment is that my critical thinking skills have gotten much keener. I re-familiarized myself with illogical syllogisms and the common logical fallacies.

  5. R Shearer says:

    97% chance this person supported Hillary.

  6. Bob G. says:

    I don’t need NASA to tell me whats going on. I have a thermometer. I live in St. Cloud MN, the hub of North America and our temp records go back 130 some years. The record shows that the most recent 35 years had the exact same average temp as the years 1900 to 1934. In the meantime CO2 went up about 50%. No correlation. No warming. The alarmists are simply measuring the urban heat island effect. I have alerted the Minneapolis Star and Tribune newspaper a few times that they should do a story on the missing warming and they have no interest in doing so. Global Warming is simply Global politics.

  7. nfw says:

    In one response to Scott Adams there was “NASA v some guy named Tony”. It reminds me of an historical analogy, ie “The whole scientific world v some guy named Galileo”.

    The comment shows the poor “argument” of the warmists, that is both an appeal to authority and an ad hominem attack in the same breath. Gotta hand it to him for his closed mind.

    Only a few days now ’til Manhattan disappears under water. That was a NASA prediction was it not?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.