Dilbert Vs. Scott Adams

Steve Goddard on Twitter: “Dilbert disagrees with you, and I normally side with Dilbert.…

This Climategate e-mail shows unequivocally that scientists from different groups colluded to get the same result, and that result involved cooling the past – without any justification.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

I don’t always dress up for Halloween, but when I do I go as Dilbert.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Dilbert Vs. Scott Adams

  1. Disillusioned says:

    Scott Adams lost all credibility when he falsely claimed there is nothing like that in evidence.

    • steve case says:

      That government climate data has been changed and that those changes form a pattern is a matter of fact. Why the pattern is a matter of opinion.

      “Nefarious intentions” is an opinion.

      What pattern?
      https://i.postimg.cc/sD1ZKVF3/image.png
      Anybody with a little curiosity can find this stuff.

      • Disillusioned says:

        Steve,
        What is your opinion about the Climategate email threads such as the one above?

        Good intentions?

        And below…
        https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/phil-jones-2009-chris-i-hope-you-not.html

        • R Shearer says:

          Yes, it doesn’t have to be bad intentions. Even some Democrats in their minds believe in nobility of killing a newborn that survived an abortion attempt.

          But it is not noble to execute a mass murderer.

        • steve case says:

          Disillusioned,
          The record stands as it’s own testimony. It’s there for all to see. When the “Dog ate my homework” and all the other excuses point to one direction, it’s difficult to award the benefit of doubt. Yes, as your TomNelson link illustrates, the other side seems to want a catastrophic disaster. They claim they don’t, but words and actions say otherwise. In the court of public opinion they should lose, but the media which is firmly on their side keeps it going. In a court of law, the standard is much higher to label what’s going on in broad day light as nefarious.

          Paint me pessimistic. Will it suddenly collapse like the USSR? Not for a while. If Trump runs and wins in 2020 the collapse will come sooner.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Thank you Steve. I have gone from the naivete of believing that all I had to do was show my progressive friends the data (after I became disillusioned by the data), forward to a decade later fighting against a cynicism that it is hopeless (that the Soros/UN/deep state/controlled media crowd is too pervasive and powerful). So, I think I understand your pessimism.

            OT: Your avatar reminds me of my father. :-D

  2. MGJ says:

    There are certain tell-tale responses people tend to use to avoid dealing with information they don’t want to hear.

    “You lost all credibility when…”
    “I stopped reading after the first line when…”
    “Debunked!!!

    No doubt there are others.

  3. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    Too many coffees?

  4. Gator says:

    Scott has an ego issue. He likes having the attention of both sides, likes being wooed and being fawned over. He enjoys the adoration and attention of both sides, he is stringing both along, avoiding becoming a pariah to either. Scott wants everyone to like and admire him, and cares much less about the science. It’s all about Scott.

    • Squidly says:

      Nailed it !!!

    • R Shearer says:

      I’d add that his comics are brilliant and he has some good ideas, but his presentation skills as shown in his podcasts suck. He’s a terrible presenter.

    • Kent Steinkamp says:

      Scott Adams set this all up from the beginning to make it look like he was going to be the great arbiter of the “climate” debate. I hate to say it, but I was taken in and watched daily for him to recognize which side was phony. As it turns out, the King of persuasion figured all along that his pals, the brilliantly educated “scientists”, would win going away. Then, he ran into my personal science hero, Tony Heller, and now Scott Adams looks like another of those who needs to smother or hide the truth.

  5. Dan Foss says:

    My thoughts were that Scott Adams was truly unbiased and looking for the truth at first, but I think it has become clear that he was always a climate alarmist and thought his persuasion skills could bring those who disagree into line with his beliefs. I’ve come to feel that he was never truly open to looking at the data and facts and making an informed decision. If not, the way he has drawn conclusions is short sighted and flawed. And in such he cares more for who is the best at persuading instead of interpreting the cold, hard facts.

  6. Bob Hoye says:

    Using Adam’s own cartoon to get the “adjustments” crime out has some power.
    It is also worthwhile to publish the emails showing Jones et al scheming.
    But the upshot is that they “disappeared” the Medieval Optimum as well as the Little Ices Age.
    They negated the warming that made agriculture prosperous enough to afford building magnificent churches and cathedrals.
    Also “disappeared” the horror show of subsequent cooling. The sudden change in 1315 to cold and rain was remarkable. In some regions famine killed some 10 percent of the population in the 1315 to 1320 harvests.
    “The Third Horseman” by William Rosen, 2014 provides a thorough account.
    Rain washed away topsoil, the grass did not have its usual nourishment so livestock became vulnerable to diseases. Not enough evaporative sun to make salt which impaired preserving fish.
    Repeat, a horror show that Michael Mann and political ambition “disappeared”.
    History did not fit a bogus theory so they altered history.

    • Don B says:

      Hi, Bob.

      I listened to a Scott Adams podcast yesterday, until he said that he had concluded that the “trick to hide the decline” was perfectly proper, and not nefarious (paraphrasing).

      Anyone who would say that is either ignorant or willfully ignorant.

      • Don B says:

        For readers new to the discussion, Montford’s 2012 book “Hiding the Decline” is definitely worth your time.

        https://www.amazon.com/Hiding-Decline-W-Montford/dp/1475293364

      • Cynthia says:

        You might be right about willfully ignorant. I commented on his twitter feed. Told him anyone in the auto industry would be stressed out if expected to explain that language in court. He didn’t seem to take any notice.

      • just a thought says:

        @Don B

        Yes. Any intelligent person has material at his fingertips, or at least a click away at his preferred search engine, that exposes the hockey trick for the shoddy science that it is.

        Every regular here is no doubt aware of these two, but for Scott Adams’ benefit I’ll post them, just in case he’s reading this.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cecmvYq_91A

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SqzcA7SsqSA

        Among his many errors, Mann’s “Nature trick” is not a legitimate data presentation technique. Never has been. Never will be.

        I would expect any anyone having an informed opinion on climate science to know that. It’s something one learns early in college, or should have anyway.

    • GW Smith says:

      Big Brother’s little helpers.

  7. Colorado Wellington says:

    “That’s because you lost all credibility by imagining nefarious intentions where there is nothing like that in evidence. The Climategate emails that you believe prove intention are where you lost me entirely.”

    Scott Adams doesn’t realize how damning his statement is.

    I have followed the climate wars arguments much longer than he did. I came to the conclusion that there is plenty of evidence of “nefarious intentions”—as did others more accomplished and smarter than me—but from a scientific point of view it doesn’t matter. We can be completely wrong about one thing and still very right about another. As a matter of fact, we almost certainly always are. Nobody is right about everything.

    Let’s assume for the sake of this argument that Tony Heller is wrong about the intentions of certain proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory. How in the world would it invalidate his research, data and findings? These stand on their own and a serious observer must deal with them on their own without regard to who came up with it.

    Scott Adams is obviously not serious. He is smart enough to know that his shortcut doesn’t work. He will not find the truth by rejecting the whole body of someone’s work by focusing on a single shortcoming, real or imagined. It’s just lazy and dumb.

    As a stark and imprecise analogy, let’s consider the U.S. space program. It is an indisputable fact that German engineers and scientists brought to America by the U.S. government were essential participants in the program. Some of them were Nazis. I reject totalitarian ideas but it would be stupid to argue that the political views of these men—and in some cases participation in disgusting Nazi programs—somehow negated their other knowledge and accomplishments in physics, rocketry, chemistry or medical science.

    Scott Adams is making exactly that stupid argument here. He should reconsider if he wants to be a serious participant in the climate debates. Right now he is not.

  8. Robert Austin says:

    Digesting Tony’s posts takes time and mental energy. An easy way out is to dismiss Tony’s prodigious output because you don’t agree with his opinion on one minor aspect of the whole issue. I don’t think Scott wants to devote the time to really delve into the climate change morass. Easier to just manufacture an excuse to dismiss Tony and pretend to be even handed.

    • AndyDC says:

      How much time and energy does it take to look at temperature charts that Tony has derived from NOAA’s very own data set? I don’t believe the average 6th grader would have any problem grasping the fact that there has been no warming at most US stations since 1940. Or grasping the fact that we have been lied to about a climate crisis.

  9. Jl says:

    I talked about this yesterday with him on Twitter-if the temperature adjustments shouldn’t have been made, who the hell cares what the intentions were?

    • Anon says:

      And how do to really determine intentions? Look at the Dilbert cartoon, one person’s adjustments are another person’s falsification. Eventually, you are going to have to weigh-in, as a jury would, with things like a “preponderance of evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

      I think that Scott Adams Dilbert cartoon is a brilliant exposition of this and a great pick by Tony Heller. It hits the nail on the head.

  10. annieoakley says:

    Scott Adams just refuses to believe the Government would lie to him. Sad

  11. john emery says:

    The central question that the “warmers” need to address is simply how we would possibly know if mankind is affecting the climate. We know that the climate has always been changing through natural mechanisms: ice ages, warm periods, etc. IF there is any climate change going on now, just how can we distinguish natural changes from ones brought on by mankind?

    • R Shearer says:

      So far, there has been no change that is not within natural variability and in fact it is relatively stable. That could all change in an instant if a large meteor struck or large volcano erupted to wipe out all of the warming of the past 150 years.

  12. Jason Calley says:

    “trick to hide the decline”

    I do not understand why Adams rejects any chance of fraud by saying that “trick” simply refers to a mathematical technique. Suppose he is right, that it is just what he says, a math technique. In what way is using it to “hide the decline” acceptable? The fraud does not lie in what method was used. The fraud (at least from a scientific point of view) is in the hiding of the decline. Honest scientists do not alter the facts to make their graphs more pleasing, more in line with the theory they are investigating. Doing so is fraud, no matter what technique is used. It is especially fraudulent when huge amounts of funding results from their actions.

    • Crispin in Waterloo says:

      Clipping off the end off a charted line and replacing it with another line from another data source is not “a math technique”. It is faking a chart if and when it is presented as a “temperature proxy”, without mentioning that the proxy was clipped where it didn’t agree with the author’s idea of what it ought to show.

      Faking a chart is not fraud, though it is fakery.

      If one is paid to produce a chart representing reality and show the spliced chart is that, then one commits fraud by breach of contract through misrepresentation – also known as “passing off”.

    • Anon says:

      And the Enton fiasco was caused by an “accounting technique” called “Mark-to-market accounting”.

      Some Interesting ClimateGate E-Mail Comments:

      A note from Jones to Trenberth: “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW [global warming] is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.”

      Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews: “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”

      Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mann and Phil Jones, stating: “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.”

      Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”

      Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

      A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

      A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

      Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

      Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

      Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

      Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…”

      In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

      Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”

      Still another observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

      One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#d7a3cd068a37

      “Nothing there”, says Dilbert’s boss, “time to move on.”

      • Disillusioned says:

        One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

        Ayup. They know in ~12 years when the AMO drops into negative territory their scapegoating ‘climate crisis’ party is over. I look forward to the tarring and feathering the charlatans have coming. No mercy.

        • dave1billion says:

          No. They’ll just state that the AMO is masking the overall rising trend.

          They used to make the claim that sulfate particulates masked the overall rising temperatures in the 70s (before they adjusted past temperatures to show that the temps were indeed rising over that period).

          They’ll kick the can down the road another 20 years or so, saying, “watch out when the AMO goes back into an upswing and we REALLY see the supercharged impacts. We need to act NOW”.

          When you control how the temperatures are reported, reality isn’t an issue.

          One thing we can look forward to is the cooling of the present temperatures in about 10-15 years to show it wasn’t as warm as they said it was. That won’t be difficult since they’re already adjusting the raw temperature readings. So the “warmest” months and years can always be the eternal “present”.

          Wow. I really depressed myself writing this post. I wish I could see a flaw in the above logic.

      • paul courtney says:

        Anon: Re; J. Overpeck referencing the “trick”. Certainly he was talking about a math technique. Nothing to see there, MoveOn.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Jason,

      It doesn’t get any more clear than what you wrote. They are obfuscating by focusing on the word “trick”. The scientific malpractice is in “hide” but they won’t touch it with a ten foot pole because they know it stinks.

  13. LexingtonGreen says:

    His show is so bizarre sometimes. He had a great show in February with Naval Ravikant and then today it is like he completely forgot everything his well qualified guest on climate change said. And I really don’t understand his take on the climategate emails. He says he is not trolling. But it looks a lot like trolling.

  14. Rah says:

    Hey Tony. Do you ever wear your Dilbert outfit when out and about in Boulder? BTW Joe says it looks like you’ll have another chance to wonder around in the snow in your shorts early next week.

  15. just a thought says:

    hahahahahahaha!!!!

    Going as Dilbert for Halloween – PRICELESS!!!!!

    Several months ago I came to the realization that Scott Adams was a lot more obtuse than his comic strip reveals him to be. He should stick to cartoons, as his commentary leaves quite a bit to be desired at times. (When I get my comp back, I’ll be more specific.)

  16. Petit_Barde says:

    Scott Adams has to sell his cartoons and most of the planet believe in the AGW :
    – imagine if he was seen as a “denier” by his public …

    We can’t ask someone to commit suicide with his own business,
    on the other hand, honesty should prevent someone to self account him/her self as neutral in a controversial debate when leaning towards one side could affect his/her business.

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.