Scott’s Nature Trick

Check out this bizarre tweet from Scott Adams, in defense of “Mike’s nature trick.”

Scott Adams on Twitter

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Scott’s Nature Trick

  1. Rud Istvan says:

    Scott Adams should stick to Dilbert. He is a climate illiterate.
    Per the Climategate emails, ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ was to splice thermometer records onto paleoproxies to hide the decline’ in temperature in Briffa’s proxies which, had they been revealed, would have discredited the entire exercise.
    So ‘trick’ and ‘hide’ are (via written proof in context) to be taken literally.

    • Don B says:

      Rud, Scott may be worse than a climate illiterate.

      I have watched many of his podcasts and found them largely interesting. Then he began the climate thingy. It was obvious he lacked even the basic information necessary to be commenting on the subject, but I held out hope that he would learn and grow. Wrong. I have stopped watching.

      It has occurred to me that he may not be as ignorant as he appears, but is simply saying outrageous things to prompt reactions and gain viewers. The climate debate does not need the likes of him.

      • Dan Kurt says:


        His much younger appearing live-in Girl friend abandoned him during 2018. Perhaps that is an explanation of his swerve into irrationality.

        Dan Kurt

      • nfw says:

        I was going to say much the same, but you have said it so well. I might add that once I watched Mr Adams but now find him so full of himself as he is unbearably smug and unwatchable. Perhaps he should try a “spectrum check” himself?

      • Gary says:

        I agree. I have watched his podcasts, but this latest stuff on the climate is boring and repetitious. He repeats the same things podcast after podcast. Anything he disagrees with he labels ‘stupid thinking’. He dismisses the influence of solar cycles out of hand but I don’t think he understands how complex they are.

      • John H says:

        Agreed. I started watching Scott for the same reason, but he makes way too many assumptions about climate change that fall apart with a little digging.

    • arn says:

      is the only reason why this pseudoscience is still alive.

      Even Flat Earthers don’t need need so much T’n’H as AGW.

      (i still wonder who ‘tricked’ the 3-5 yards sea level rise away that was supposed to drown the Maledives and even bridges in Manhattan by 2018-
      The only thing that drowned in 2018 was the last inch of credibility and integrity in climate science.
      When out of 3meters only(0.1%) 3 mm remain than you need a legion of tricks to keep your theory afloat.

    • Robert Austin says:

      If one looks up the meanings of “trick” and “hide” in the dictionary, it is quite apparent that “trick” and “hide” were literally appropriate descriptions of the miscreants. If Scott was to read “The Hockey Stick Illusion” he might better understand the machinations of the “team” in pursuit of their agenda.

  2. Tom Robbins says:

    Scott Adams – i think you misunderstood – they person left out the last 50 years of proxy data as it shows a cyclical pattern – is that not purposeful fraud? It is hiding and tricking, its done all the time to push one set of data over another, and its NOT ok, especially when you are trying to show temp increase against increases in c02, which BTW is only about 4.5% man – soil puts out 9X’s the c02 as ALL of man’s activities…. so plant more damn trees and stop CLEAR CUTTING TREES to build bird chopping (which is absolutley tragic the big game birds including bald eagles that are killed, and other big game birds, millions of bats, non-sustainable, and will not reduce c02, in-fact will increase over its lifetime due to maintenance on thousands of individual towers, etc… Come on Scott.. you put out the challenge, pay attention….

  3. Thomas Robbins says:

    Scott Adams – i think you misunderstood – they person left out the last 50 years of proxy data as it shows a cyclical pattern – is that not purposeful fraud? It is hiding and tricking, its done all the time to push one set of data over another, and its NOT ok, especially when you are trying to show temp increase against increases in c02, which BTW is only about 4.5% man – soil puts out 9X’s the c02 as ALL of man’s activities…. so plant more damn trees and stop CLEAR CUTTING TREES to build bird chopping (which is absolutley tragic the big game birds including bald eagles that are killed, and other big game birds, millions of bats, non-sustainable, and will not reduce c02, in-fact will increase over its lifetime due to maintenance on thousands of individual towers, etc… Come on Scott.. you put out the challenge, pay attention….

  4. misanthropicMarc says:

    “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”
    ― George Orwell

  5. misanthropicMarc says:

    I’ve also noticed that most responses include some sort of politically incorrect, personal attack. Asking is someone is “on the spectrum” is tantamount to calling someone a “retard”, in this context. Resorting to ad hominem is the tactic of weak minds and weaker positions.

    Rules apply to everyone else, not to Liberals nor to Progressives.

  6. Gator says:

    Mr Adams must not be familiar with Freudian slips, or how to properly handle data, or what was actually done by the Hockey Team. Even Richard Muller trashed Mann for his BS. It’s not the language, Mr Adams, it’s the data fraud.

    • R Shearer says:

      The proper scientific approach is to acknowledge all data, including contradictory data. If the contradictory data is weak, fine, but to “hide” it is simply wrong.

      A pharmaceutical company conducting a clinical trial can’t and shouldn’t hide deaths or adverse reactions that occur during a trial. Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances, but these need to be addressed.

      Climate scientists get away with cherry picking. I’m surprised that Adams doesn’t see this as a problem.

    • Martin says:

      Richard Muller. He says that if the IPCC projections of the future are right the global warming is a threat to the world.

  7. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    I get the impression that Scott Adams is relatively new to the Global Warming scam. His heart appears to be in the right place, but I don’t think he’s been following the witchdoctors tricks for as long as some of here. All the more reason for us to keep exposing their lies:

    The climate con-artists have tried again and again to whitewash Michael Mann’s fraud. Here’s one example:
    “”Mike’s Nature trick” refers to what climatologist Michael Mann did for a 1998 article in the journal Nature. In the article, Mann and his co-authors displayed a reconstructed historical data set, known as MBH98. This temperature data extended only up until 1980. Before the article was published, Nature’s peer reviewers suggested also displaying the modern instrumental temperature record, which extended all the way until the present, for context. This was done. The two curves were shown on the same graph, each clearly labeled, and the data for both curves was already public domain. This, and this alone, constituted the entirety of “Mike’s Nature trick.”

    Wrong! MBH98 was a temperature ‘reconstruction’ derived from tree ring data. But the reconstruction showed a clear decline in modern temperatures after ~1980. No matter how Mann sliced and diced it using voodoo statistics, the decline in the modern portion of the reconstruction was so severe, it essentially proved that tree rings don’t work as a proxy for temperature. The portion of the reconstruction after ~1980 simply didn’t match reality, no matter how much he molested the data. So Mann deleted the portion that didn’t support his theory, and instead appended on actual temperatures, which did. And contrary to the statements above, the appended portion of the curve was not clearly marked. The connecting point was in fact hidden, because it was a ‘trick’ designed to fool people. It was a clear cut case of scientific fraud, and the climategate emails show that none of the other climate con-artists had any problem with it whatsoever. And as you can see, some climate liars still defend the MBH 98 lie to this day. Which was proof that climate ‘scientists’ aren’t scientists at all. They’re just modern day witch doctors.

    Oh, and the statement “…the data for both curves was already public domain…” is another a blatant lie. Multiple researchers requested Mann’s data and the code he used to process it, so they could verify his results. Because that’s what scientists do. But Mann refused and stonewalled them for years, It was later revealed that his treatment of the tree ring data was so obviously bogus and biased that honest colleagues ultimately labeled him “A disgrace to the profession.”

  8. GeologyJim says:

    Question: Does Scott Adams believe that Shia Iranians chanting “Death to America, the Great Satan” are just using poetic, figurative speech?

    Daniel Pearl learned the hard way to take them at their word.

    • peter hodges says:

      Daniel Pearl was killed by a Saudi inspired SUNNI salafi jihadist.

      15 SAUDI’s and 4 Saudi inspired SUNNI jihadists attacked the United States. Gee, guess who attacked our consular staff in Banghazi killing several Americans….the very SUNNI salafi jihadists we were paying to overthrow Khadaffi and shipping to Syria to overthrow Assad.

      Whatever you have against them, it is stretch to blame Iran or Shia for the consequences of our idiotic policy of supporting salafi jihadists.

      • Louis Hooffstetter says:

        How do you tell the difference between a Shia jihadist chanting “Death to America!” and a a Sunni jihadist chanting “Death to America!” ??

        I give up…

        • eddie willers says:

          Radical Muslims want to kill you.
          Moderate Muslims want radical Muslims to kill you.

          • Cannon Cocker says:


          • Gator says:

            A radical Muslim would be one who shuns Muhammad’s violent ways, and I welcome them. It is the fundamental Muslims, those who closely follow the Koran, who are the most deadly to all others.

            The left has brainwashed people into believing that “radical” Muslims are dangerous, to help them continue their suicidal “religion of peace” lie. Time to take our language back. Words have meaning, except when leftists use them.

            Beware the Newspeak! Refuse to speak with a f*cked tongue.

  9. GW Smith says:

    Yes, Tony was fair and on subject while Scott chose to go ad hominem in a very snobbish way. It must be glaringly obvious when someone is not on the System. But Scott still knows he’s in the right.

  10. steve case says:

    Words have meaning, and in this case:
    The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
    The final result:

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

    I can read English, and it says the real temperatures were added to hide the decline.
    Scott Adams says that’s not how the words were meant, but I don’t see what he’s claiming the meaning were. “Trick” might be up for some interpretation but “Hide” is pretty straight forward it means; “put or keep out of sight; conceal from the view or notice of others. “

    The No Tricks Zone (was that named after Mike’s Nature Trick? I just noticed that.) probably isn’t the best site to show to our friends on the left, but on my search for a good illustration it was pretty good.

  11. Colorado Wellington says:

    Scott’s reaction to this will show the man. I hope it is right.

  12. -B- says:

    The reason they splice the data sets together is because the proxy data didn’t get “adjusted”. Not being adjusted it does not show the desired result and discredits the adjustments. Without the adjustments there is no warming. The adjustments depend on the credibility of the adjusters. When the proxy data doesn’t match the credibility of the adjusters goes down the toilet.

    And there is why they don’t present side by side but instead do the substitution.

  13. paul courtney says:

    I followed Scott Adams blog for awhile before 2016 election. At the time, he was questioning AGW because the method of persuasion they employed was all wrong (paraphrasing, he didn’t think “the science is settled” was an argument, and he couldn’t understand why they couldn’t say it without spraying). He caught the sort of flak one would expect from a cult when one fails to genuflect to dogma, and he wrote a few columns on “persuasion”, which brought out the “hair on fire” types. At the time (and still) I thought he knew what he was doing, and the reader could see that the AGW crowd wanted him off stage NOW! Then he said some good things about Trump being persuasive, and commenters went nuts. It was hilarious mostly because he made very benign, reasonable points with caveats like, “I don’t know, not a scientist, could be AGW but they are going about it like they don’t really believe it”, and got viciously attacked by some who had been fans. My impression was that he knew he was giving them rope and enjoying watching them dance at the end of it. Then he switched to a new format I didn’t like, and I stopped following it.

    To our host- Scott Adams is a smart ass (great when one agrees with him). He doesn’t know about climategate, he did not follow AGW until maybe 2-3 years ago. He obviously has not read up on Mann-tasm, and likely got the idea YOU were being irrationally harsh. One of his readers will try to ‘splain this to him. Whether he listens and is persuaded (he does not always practice what he preaches, or he would never attack someone for using terms that are perfect contextual terms, Mann did hide it and it did decline) time will tell. I won’t know unless I read it here!

  14. rah says:

    Mr. Adams, may I suggest three things:
    1. This book.
    I’m pretty sure your familiar with Mark Steyn and probably aware that Michal Mann sued him and that Steyn has counter sued?
    I would suggest this book:

    In it you will find testimonials from many real scientists that just blast Michal Mann’s “science” and what he did to come up with the hockey stick. It was produced outside the normal and accepted practices of the scientific method.

    2. Ask yourself why did Mann splice the instrument record to the end portion of his proxy tree ring study instead of continuing with his tree ring proxy data into more recent times?

    3. I would also suggest that it might be elucidating for you to read up on the real history of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as expressed in the contemporary accounts of that time. IOW the words of those that lived in those periods. Against a plethora of accepted science and those contemporary accounts Michael Mann virtually eliminated the MWP in his hockey stick because to have a period of preindustrial era warming destroys the argument that the current warming they claim is happening has to be due to human activity. And THAT is why your have this:

  15. nfw says:

    Ah, an ad hominin attack, the refuge of the argument incapable and certainly of those who know they are wrong, but don’t like being proved so or having to admit it. Of course Mr Adam is far too polite and SJW to actually accuse Mr Heller of any mental differences from the SJW mainstream because he posed the attack as a question rather than a statement. Now I think about it, was it politeness or gutlessness? I would think the latter.

  16. Ed Bo says:

    I think the scientists actually believe(d) that the “trick” was a valid clever technique, and that the hidden decline was irrelevant to their conclusions. It seems that this belief is what fooled Adams.

    It is really depressing to consider that key scientists in such an important field could be so incompetent. Many people have trouble accepting this. It can take a lot of analysis to understand it.

  17. Dave N says:

    It doesn’t even matter if “trick” was meant to be a synonym for “technique”; it’s the result that matters, and it was one of fraud. Anyone who reads Dilbert on a regular basis would see that Adams understands these distinctions all very well.

  18. Mac says:

    Downright insulting little twit, if you ask me. The one thing I know from coming to this blog for years is that its author seems quite well-versed in this subject matter, and I trust what he says as true. So, this guy sarcastically asking if you’re autistic is nothing but deflection and infantile churlishness. I don’t like people who know they’ve lost an argument, but their macho pride prevents them from admitting defeat. And, for a writer, he doesn’t seem to understand context and nuances of language very well, or the implcations of someone saying “hide” and “trick” when you’re discussing this subject.

    The fact that Scott Adams is so amazingly arrogant and petulant seems to indicate to me that he’s feeling the pull from the Dark Side. Those climate change people are like the Borg, and the weak-minded seem to be intimidated by their religious fervor and lies.

    I always thought Dilbert was stupid, anyway.

  19. Adams is pilloried constantly by angry mobs of warmunists. Why not ask him to make a prediction? He called the election, and might make a prediction on some political outcome of attempts to stop power generation. That is what he’s good at.

  20. Menicholas says:

    To me it is obvious from his commentary today that he has purposefully decided to pretend to be undecided.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Dunno if he is pretending or not. He hasn’t done the work, it appears. It appears to me he has come to the party very late, and has made off-the-cuff commentary before and without choosing to read the information that has been set before him that would debunk some of his off-the-cuff opining.

      • Menicholas says:

        Based on hearing him speak and write about the issues of climate change many times, I can tell you that he knows enough to draw conclusions.

        • Disillusioned says:

          He admitted he doesn’t do research. If he a actually knows enough to know better, then why feign ignorance? What could be the purpose of playing this game?

          • Menicholas says:

            Go to the blog thread and read it.
            If you cannot figure it out after that, let me know.
            I am sick of talking about him.
            I cancelled by Patreon support of him over this.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Nuff said, Menicholas. I only watched a few of the vids and read a few of the comments (he seemed pretty ignorant). I trust your account, and I have no time, nor the desire to waste any more time on him, either. Thanks for the replies.

  21. mabarnes says:

    I’m on a crappy tablet so need help here. I started reading the Twitter thread and noticed Scott mentioned the tree rings seem to match in the past …

    Then it got into explaining “adjusted” temps and all that …

    So my questions: Were the recent tree ring years, the ones hidden by Mann for not matching instrumental data, a match for RAW temp data? Was Mann hiding their mismatch to his ADJUSTED instrumental data?

    If so to my first question, it would seem the rings would expose not just Mann, but temp fraud. Seems elegant even … “Hey Mike, leave the rings in, just use proper instrumental data and you’re square.”

    Sorry if this is asked and answered if not limited by this tablet I’d just look it up meeself….

    • Steven Fraser says:

      What you suggest is difficult, since finding trees which can be sampled and suitable to be compared with actual historical thermometer readings is tricky.

      Maybe not impossible. Get a grant and do the study.

  22. Psalmon says:

    I would stop trying to convince Dilbert. He’s an imbecile.

    • Psalmon says:

      The order of events is important.

      If you say “I am gonna kill those guys…that can be construed to be in jest or just for emphasis, if they go on to live long lives.”

      If “those guys” then end up murdered shortly after you say that…it can NOT be construed that way.

      The Climate Gate emails came out after the hides and tricks and all the rest. In context they did exactly what the said they would do. It wasn’t in context, “hey that’s a cool trick.” It was a trick.

      Someone who can’t tell the difference is an imbecile.

  23. Steven Fraser says:

    The meaning of the words ‘hide’ and ‘trick’ by the original authors can be learned by backtracking to what was actually done by the researchers and study writers. I think Tony’s interpretation is consistent with what was being referenced by the original users of the terms in describing what was done.

    For example, truncating part of Ken Briffa’s tree ring proxy temp results from one of the charts is cherrypicking. To do it in a place on the chart where the trace ‘crosses behind’ another proxy line, obscures the truncation. To not disclose that this was done is wrong on a variety of levels. To not tell Briffa in advance that this was being done is unconscionable.

  24. Bob Gyurik says:

    The problem with Scott’s exercise is that it cannot be an even handed “debate” with one “side” versus the other. In Science (I am a research scientist BTW), the burden of proof is on the scientist(s) who make the hypothesis. Not only that—they must make serious overtures to falsify their own hypothesis. They are on the defensive, according to the scientific method, not the other way around; it is not equivocal. They have a hill to climb, and must entertain all objections.

  25. CO2isLife says:

    Tony, there is a video of Steve McIntyre discussing the Hide the Decline issue at the Heartland event. You should post that video on Scott’s Twitter feed. It clearly outlines how it was a deliberate attempt to fool the public and manipulate the data to get the desired results.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.