Scott Adams “Says”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Scott Adams “Says”

  1. Glenn OBanion says:

    I guess I’m in deep trouble. However, unlike Scott Adams, I didn’t get blackmailed by bureaucratic charlatans, corporate frauds & unethical scientists into getting the experimental jab containing a rogue spike protein. He maybe “free to travel” and feel like he’s part of the “protected herd”, but it could very well be a death sentence or long term health problems the top experts who were censored warned about.

  2. Anon says:

    That is a really odd ad hominem comment. I have not interacted with Tony at all, so for all I know Tony lives in a tree and eats bananas. However, I am not interested in what Tony does in his spare time. What I am interested in is content like:

    1] Previous news articles about the climate.

    2] Actual tide gauge data.

    3] NCAR data from the 1990s which declares no observable warming.

    4] Alteration of NASA/NOAA datasets.

    Etc, etc, etc…

    So, if Scott Adams thinks Tony isn’t credible, then all he needs to do is “mute” Tony’s videos and look at the articles and data himself.

    I hate to make this assertion without proof, but it isn’t too hard to imagine that Scott Adam’s publishers have told him to “stick to the narrative”, or good luck with his career as an author and comic strip writer.

    It is hard to speak “truth to power” when the powers that be are signing your pay checks. And from listening to Scott Adams a lot, I always get the feeling that he is navigating a minefield: where he is always evaluating what he says in light of how his publishers will respond. I never got this “feeling” from Joe Rogan, especially in his early days before Spotify.

    • arn says:

      Scott Adams is doing what Weinsteins rape victi…
      i mean:Hollywood celebrities had been doing for decades
      to stay close to the honey pot.

      Look away whenever Weinstein did what he did,
      have a unified opinion,
      promote the same agendas,
      attack those who do not have the unified opinion

      Meanwhile im the real world even total outsiders as Courtney Love knew about Weinsteins rape business.
      She is a singer,and just a part time actor who has nothing to do with the hollywood stars or the inner circles of hollywood
      and even she knew and said it life on cam(i think it was in 2004),
      that girls should stay away from Weinstein Parties.
      Now take a look at(IMDB or Wiki) what happened to her hollywood carreer since the year she made the comment and when her carreer hit the wall and she only could.
      Same things(only worse) happened to the carreers of Dean Cain or Antonio Sabato jr in
      2016
      after they supported the wrong party and president.

      Similar things are happening in Academia on a softer scale.
      A guy called Gad Saad has some really interessting videos about this on his youtube channel.

    • gybemeister says:

      Re: Tony Heller’s credibility. Would Steve Koonin also be considered to be not credible by Scott Adams? What about Alex Epstein? Or, Judith Curry? Or, @Ecosensenow? Or Mike Shellenberger? Or…

      Similarly I used to listen to Scott Adams a ton but quit cold turkey after his unscientific subjective claim that trans are fairly competing with girls in certain sports. BS.
      Accordingly, nothing Scott Adams Says has any relevance anywhere on plane earth IMHO.

  3. KevinPaul says:

    Who is Scott Adams?
    From whence does his credibility aspire? Does he have a blog with hours of videos, stacks of graphs, and news paper clippings, amassed data supporting his postulates, indicating very strongly how climate fear is being used as a tool to communize the world and consolidate all power and authority into the hands of just a vain despotic few?

    Oh, he’s just a storyboard satirist, maybe he should stick to comics, and project the fool rather than playing it.

    • Mary I. says:

      Scot Adams is a narcissist who likes to hear the sound of his own voice. Judging by the numbers of likes on his channel, he’s one of the few who does.

  4. MichiCanuck says:

    I guess you’ll just have to stick to presenting data. Oh wait ….

  5. arn says:

    I’m still waiting for a bunch of climate scientists to come out and admitt
    the global cooling scare.

    As it is supereasy to prove there should have at least be a “consensus”
    about the existence of ice age mongering.

    I am also waiting for climate scientists to admitt that there are(would be) benefits to the (nonexisting man made) global warming.

    If the countries A&B are identical and blessed with a great climate,
    except that country B is a little less perfect as it is one degree cooler on average.
    Than an increase of 1 degree may turn country A into the typical
    (AGW)Apocalyptic fearporn scenario,
    but country B should reach the(former) perfect state of country A.

    But somehow,by some incredible coincidencey
    there are never positive effects of global warming.
    Warmer climate is bad for hot countries,for balanced countries and for cool countries.
    That”s absolutely impossible that there are no benefits.
    There is no pros & cons,
    just negative results are allowed to exist officially.

  6. Walt Lafford says:

    Why not have a debate between Scott Adams and Tony live and we could see which of Tony’s data is false. I am sure Scott was all kinds of data to back up his story LOL.

  7. paul courtney says:

    What a credible guy does is, he posts this video. Goodo Tony H.
    I followed Mr. Adams long enough to see his credibility diminish by his own words.

  8. db says:

    Assertions made without evidence can safely be dismissed without evidence.
    I stopped listening to Scott Adams a while ago.

  9. Mike Linn says:

    and yet he offers no evidence to support his opinion. “Doesnt mean he wrong” but…. WTF is that?

  10. Knutsen says:

    I stopped following Scott when he said he doesn’t read books e.g. 1984. He is sucking his own breast.

  11. Anthony Enos Wicher says:

    Does Scott Adams supply any grounds for saying Tony Heller is not credible? In the absence of any such grounds supplied in this clip, I ask Tony Heller, were there any such “interactions” between you and Scott Adams, and if so, what happened?

    • gybemeister says:

      Awhile ago Tony took Scott up on his offer to referee a denier vs a warmist debate. Tony volunteered but no warmist so-called climate scientist did so Scott tried to play the Devil’s Advocate using Skeptical Science arguments as representing the warmist POV. I tried to follow the debate but have to admit I couldn’t tell you who won. Similarly, there was a debate between Climate Audit and the True Believers quite awhile ago. In that one I think CA clearly won.

  12. PHIL FETZER says:

    Since I don’t know the back story, what’s the conflict and from where did it emanate?

  13. LexingtonGreen says:

    I am pretty sure Scott has been brain washed on this topic and he was duped by that Potholer guy in my humble opinion.

  14. David says:

    Oh my gosh… I find Tony gets something wrong a few times a year and we should not follow Tony?

    Scott Adams is awesome…He talks way too much and told me not to worry about Trump loosing and we’ll that didn’t turn out as he predicated.

    I’ve been following Tony for about as long as anyone and I’m not sure how looking up old newspaper articles, digging into the actual data and showing how the government agencies have manipulated it can be something I don’t want to know.

    When a guys starts loosing Twitter followers via shadow banning or an algorithm, it’s likely Tony’s on to something.

  15. Bruce Bailey says:

    Wave goodbye to many of your followers Scott. We can make up our own minds by looking at the data from different sources. We certainly would not trust someone who says “Believe me I am a hypnotist”.

  16. Walter Wagner says:

    the cartoonist has spoken; it must be true.

  17. Scissor says:

    Must have really made an impression for that ringing endorsement. Perhaps Bill Nye got to him.

  18. CO2isLife says:

    Why does he think Tony is not credible?

  19. Lynn Comstock says:

    Science is not Scott’s field and it is over his head.

  20. Michael Spencer says:

    Who is this idiot? It would be hard to find anyone who is more credible than Tony! Tony backs up his nasty FACTS with lots of old reports dating back even several centuries.

    Of course, Scott might be able to prove that journalists back in the 18th and 19th centuries, or indeed the early 20th century, were all reporting falsely in anticipation of the great global warming crisis/catastrophe/emergency/apocalypse of the 21st century.

    But the: Pigs fly you know ….. (Pink ones!)

  21. Michael Moore says:

    I wouldn’t worry about what that flog says Tony. You’ve got more credibility in your little toe than he’s got in his entire body.

  22. Scott Adams is a technically illiterate buffoon who is in no position to declare who is credible and who isn’t, in a subject domain where he is clearly pig ignorant. Where is the reasoned refutation of Tony’s work, or indeed that of anybody who presents actual science, rather than hype? Adam’s sole criterion is the ‘scientific consensus’, and the bogus accreditation of charlatans by other charlatans. To his credit he claims to be a layman. If that is the case, his opinion falls into the category as ‘some bloke down the pub says’, and may be safely ignored by anybody seriously interested in the subject. You cannot present real science to his ilk, they are too ignorant to understand it.

  23. D. Boss says:

    Scott Adams is a strange animal. He appears willing to look at a subject dispassionately, but then flips his view on the most trivial and nonsensical of subjective cues. He plays the village idiot and denies any influence of real understanding of reality, and instead tries to weigh his stance on which of a set of arguments is “more persuasive”.

    He embodies the definition of “non sequitur” by not allowing factual or known parameters to become part of what is or isn’t “persuasive”.

    Look at this:

    https://realclimatescience.com/2018/12/the-scott-adams-climate-challenge/

    Here he says taken side by side, the Climate Alarm argument vs Climate Alarm is a Scam argument made by Tony – and he says Tony’s argument wins by showing the data is deliberately fudged to match the theory.

    Then look at this, which is apparently the point where Adams flips and deems Tony to be non credible:

    https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/dilbert-vs-scott-adams/

    I quote: “you lost all credibility by imagining nefarious intentions where there is nothing like that in evidence.” He’d referring to the ClimateGate emails which unequivocally show they wanted to change the data to remove the 1940’s blip.

    So on the one hand Adams was strongly persuaded Tony had shown with data, news accounts and so on, that Alarmist information has been fudged or commits lies of omission, or outright changes past data to support their cause; But then when an email from a Climate Alarmist says they wanted to change the past data to support their cause, Adams deems that not credible and dismisses everything Tony said or says???

    Adams is a flake whose position cannot be trusted if that is how his feeble brain operates.

    (or by his own creed of disallowing factual information and only going by which argument is more persuasive – if you are going to loose your job, your friends, and your freedom by believing Climate Scam is false, then that is a helluva strong persuasive argument to accept the Scam, even if you know it’s wrong!) (in my mind that is no better than good German people who knew what the Nazis were doing was wrong, but did not challenge things when they had a chance to stop it)

  24. Mac says:

    This is a really insulting little rant. In my opinion, if you’re following Scott Adams, you’re really in trouble. His continual infantile attempts at trying to look impartial on the subject of climate change are getting tiresome. What, exactly, does he find to be “not credible”? Does Adams understand science? Does he know what CO2 is? Can he read and absorb data? Can he understand graphs? Either climate change is occurring, or it isn’t. And, again, in my opinion, if you claim it’s occurring, you’re making the claim for socio-economic and political reasons, not scientific reasons.

    However, I hope Mr. Heller isn’t disheartened at not being endorsed by the guy who draws “Dilbert”.

  25. Anthony Enos Wicher says:

    Scott Adams is both inane and conceited.

Leave a Reply

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