Tuesday Titter

Scott Adams says through Dilbert what we have all been thinking lately…

Scott must read Climate Progress, where else would he get ideas like this?

h/t to WUWT reader Ian

The Sunday March 20th comic was also relevant:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
65 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Marshall
March 29, 2011 6:16 am

Yup, just about says it all.

Ziiex Zeburz
March 29, 2011 6:26 am

As the man said,
1 in 4 humans is an idiot,
look closely at your 3 best friends,
if they are OK,
find a mirror !

Rick Bradford
March 29, 2011 6:27 am

To tell a Skeptic from a Warmist is easy — the latter have no sense of humour whatever because they take themselves so seriously.

March 29, 2011 6:30 am

ROFL

March 29, 2011 6:38 am

The green breakthrough that the Greens really need is for them to discover that more CO2 makes the world greener.

SteveE
March 29, 2011 6:50 am

How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?
None, it’s too early to say if the lightbulb needs changing.

March 29, 2011 6:51 am

The warmista crowd has just taken it to the next level.

EJ
March 29, 2011 7:01 am

The tide has definately turned. When people start mocking the greatest calamity to befall humanity.

netdr2
March 29, 2011 7:07 am

The reliability one isn’t far off the mark.
I worked for a defense contractor as a lead design engineer [electronic] and we designed a communications system. I was responsible for one piece of equipment.
We did our designs to maximize performance with little consideration of reliability and submitted the parts list to the “reliability” department and they [the designs] failed to meet the requirements. We re-submitted the same parts lists and they miraculously passed.
Accounting was almost as bad. Money would come into and out of my “budget” seemingly randomly.
Sometimes Dilbert is so true that it is scary.

steveta_uk
March 29, 2011 7:07 am

How many warmists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, they prefer to remain in the dark.

kim
March 29, 2011 7:22 am

I told my friend Peter Bocking that I hoped this whole mess would end in ridicule, and not in anger, and he replied that too many had died already.
And he’s turned out right, after all. The deaths are tragic, but the lost fortunes have longer memories.
===========

March 29, 2011 7:23 am

steveta_uk says:
March 29, 2011 at 7:07 am
How many warmists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, they prefer to remain in the dark.

Well, yeah but they also blame the dark on anthropogenic CO2 emissions, declare those emissions to be pollution, determine schemes to either curtail or “balance” those emissions, claim the dark will cause cataclysmic future events, and using models, project that in 100 years or so they will have possibly eliminated 0.001% of the dark.

Roger Longstaff
March 29, 2011 7:32 am

SteveE says:
March 29, 2011 at 6:50 am
How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?
In the UK – none; you can’t buy 100w filament bulbs anymore – they are illegal because they cause “Globull Warming”. But……….. I have found a smashing little asian shop that sells them by the shedload – made in China. They are banging them out in millions! This is great because in this bloody freezing country 100w bulbs not only give the right amount of illumination, they also add some much needed heat.
God bless the Chinese!

mike restin
March 29, 2011 7:32 am

EJ says:
March 29, 2011 at 7:01 am
The tide has definately turned. When people start mocking the greatest calamity to befall humanity.
you forgot to turn off /sarc

kwik
March 29, 2011 7:51 am

netdr2 says:
March 29, 2011 at 7:07 am
Sometimes Dilbert is so true that it is scary.
That is so true. Actually engineers are sending him tips on what is going on out in the industry. And we recognise almost everything with scary timing!

March 29, 2011 7:57 am

EJ is kind of right, in a way. Just as millions died from malaria as a result of the DDT ban, so millions more will continue to needlessly die from the effects of extreme poverty as a result of us clamping down on any more affordable energy, now that we’ve got ours.
A great calamity indeed.

Gary Swift
March 29, 2011 8:07 am

How many warmists does it take to change a lightbulb?
How big is your budget?

Douglas DC
March 29, 2011 8:25 am

I worked for a commuter airline that was run by the aviation version of the Pointy-Haired Boss. His motto: “Gross income equals direct profit.” Well, we were told that
there was a new buyer for the airline, by the boss. Apparently he had his accountant
cook the books for the new buyer. At the meeting with the new buyer, he read the cooked books, and said “Geez I’d be fool to sell this thing, I’m setting on a gold mine!”
He-was-serious. I made money that summer working for a repo company collecting his
aircraft that got scattered around the Eastern Oregon and Washington….

SteveE
March 29, 2011 8:25 am

Or you could go with:
How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?
None. It’s more cost-effective to live in the dark.

Adam Gallon
March 29, 2011 8:42 am

Dilbert’s been a classic from the word go. You may not work in that/> company, but they don’t half resemble the one you do work in!

March 29, 2011 8:42 am

The club of Rome just don’t want to fight a ground war in Africa when the next Ice age comes.

Lady Life Grows
March 29, 2011 8:45 am

Dan Lee says:
March 29, 2011 at 7:57 am
EJ is kind of right, in a way. Just as millions died from malaria as a result of the DDT ban, so millions more will continue to needlessly die from the effects of extreme poverty as a result of us clamping down on any more affordable energy, now that we’ve got ours.
A great calamity indeed.
———–Nah. You haven’t been watching your Hans Rosling videos. Starvation and poverty are both shrinking.
But, so are births. There will come a population collapse eventually, and with it, an economic collapse. I hope to avert that.

oldgamer56
March 29, 2011 8:52 am

How many warmists does it take to change a light bulb?
Seven. One to deny your request for a new one on the grounds that you are a greedy capitalist and six in the Hazmat team that comes to collect your dead CFL that died after less than 1/5 it’s stated life. All will be counted as new green jobs in order to WTF.
Actually have 3 dead CFLs sitting on my desk that lasted less than a year in my office light. Sure didn’t see any savings here.

TheJollyGreenMan
March 29, 2011 9:07 am

Dan Lee, are you seriously thinking your ‘affordable energy’ is going to last? Hope your solar panels are on order because soon, pretty soon, the power from the grid will be rationed. Read Obama’s election speeches!
I like Scott Adams, I just hope that he has a sizeable following in the US of A.

William Mason
March 29, 2011 9:13 am

“The tide has definately turned. When people start mocking the greatest calamity to befall humanity.”
What calamity? Oh wait! The warmers. I get it now. Never mind!

March 29, 2011 9:20 am

Dilbert seems to be a favorite topic of the blogs today! 🙂

Bob Diaz
March 29, 2011 9:23 am

Dilbert has a lot of truth to it. I find it funny when a CO2 alarmist says that Green Technology (that doesn’t even exist) is going to cost less and be better. How can that be? We don’t even know if it’s even possible.
Step 1: First develop the “Green Technology”.
Step 2: Decide if it costs less and is better!

Stone Age
March 29, 2011 9:36 am

Q. How many warmists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. Change a what?
Q. How many warmists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. due to Freedom of Information request.

Physics Major
March 29, 2011 9:40 am

Skepticism goes mainstream – YES!

CodeTech
March 29, 2011 10:05 am

How many warmists does it take to change a lightbulb? Depends what you’re changing it to. If you’re changing it to a CFL, then only a few. If you’re changing it to a luminescent wall panel powered by solar cells and unicorn farts, maybe a few more.
As for psychiatrists, it only takes one of them to change a light bulb… but the light bulb really has to want to change.
I’ve been following Dilbert since it started. Like everyone who has ever had their name on a cubicle, or worse, never even rated their own cubicle, I have personally seen almost everything he’s come up with. The raw greed, the idiot climbers, people getting promoted past their capability, fabrication of data, fabrication of books, the callous disregard for talented interns, the hypersensitive female employees that think “good morning” is sexual harassment, etc. etc.

jorgekafkazar
March 29, 2011 10:06 am

Engineers are harder to fool. More physical science in their curriculum.

t stone
March 29, 2011 10:26 am

I’ve always loved Dilbert, this is reinforcement.

Rich
March 29, 2011 10:44 am

How many warmists does it take to change a light globe?
None. They use the combined data from the working globes in the house to claim the current globe is not just working but brighter than it has ever been.

Burch
March 29, 2011 10:48 am

How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one, but before changing the bulb they check the state of the on-off switch and power supply to verify that it actually needs to be changed.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
— Richard P. Feynman

steveta_uk
March 29, 2011 11:24 am

Roger Longstaff (7:32 am)
I recently had to change a light fitting for the mother-in-law, as the old one had burned out and exploded, after the insulation had melted on the wiring, caused by her buying Chinese 100W bulbs that were very dodgy quality, since she can no longer buy proper ones.
When will the first death occur due to banning 100W bulbs, I wonder? Perhaps it already has.

R Taylor
March 29, 2011 11:37 am

How many warmists does it take to change a light bulb?
A consensus of them, who also tell you the dark caused the light to go out.

Jeff B.
March 29, 2011 12:10 pm

How many warmists does it take to change a lightbulb?
One + the HAZMAT team to clean up the mercury from the dropped CFL bulb.

Jeff B.
March 29, 2011 12:13 pm

How many warmists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Dunno? But I know a good Hockey Team.

TonyG
March 29, 2011 12:19 pm

Bob Diaz says:
Step 1: First develop the “Green Technology”.
Step 2: Decide if it costs less and is better!

The way I hear it, it’s more like:
Step 1: Decide “Green Technology” costs less and is better
Step 2: Build it
Step 3: Ignore basic physics and economics and claim you were right.

Paddytoplad
March 29, 2011 12:25 pm

How many war mists does it take to change a light bulb?
About 1000
5 to do the environmental impact assessment.
2 to approve the environmental impact assessment.
40 to mine the precious ores for the chinese Eco lightbulb.
6 workers on $3 per day to manufacture it.
32 to rig the sales on the Eco barge.
2 to drive the Nissan milk float from the dock taking 6 days to deliver because it needs a recharge every 100 miles.
1 to drive the rickshaw from the depot to the socket
1 electrician to replace the bulb after health and safety course
And the other 913 needed to go to an Eco conference in Bali paid by the ipcc to discuss the impact of the new bulb and the ways of offsetting the carbon released in it’s replacement
118 to deliver the lightbulb from the factory.
20 to rig the masts on the schooner delivering the bulb from china

Ed Dahlgren
March 29, 2011 12:25 pm

EJ says:
March 29, 2011 at 7:01 am
The tide has definately turned. When people start mocking the greatest calamity to befall humanity.
=//=//=//=//=
First, get some perspective. The greatest calamity to our species will be when our sun goes red giant and boils all the water off the earth.
Next, resuscitate your sense of humor. Try watching The Producers, a movie written by a Jew about Jews producing a musical comedy about Hitler. Or maybe see some Monty Python about the Black Death.
Then, meditate on other documented, death-dealing calamities. Industrialized warfare. Stalin. The 1916 Swine Flu. AIDS.
Try some philosophical comparison shopping. Which was worse, the Fall from Grace or the Death of God?
There’s lots to consider; you can’t just merrily toss out an epithet such as, “the greatest calamity to befall humanity.”

Paddytoplad
March 29, 2011 12:29 pm

Oops should read
How many warmists does it take to change a light bulb?
About 1000
5 to do the environmental impact assessment.
2 to approve the environmental impact assessment.
40 to mine the precious ores for the chinese Eco lightbulb.
6 workers on $3 per day to manufacture it.
32 to rig the sales on the Eco barge.
2 to drive the Nissan milk float from the dock taking 6 days to deliver because it needs a recharge every 100 miles.
1 to drive the rickshaw from the depot to the socket
1 electrician to replace the bulb after health and safety course
And the other 913 needed to go to an Eco conference in Bali paid by the ipcc to discuss the impact of the new bulb and the ways of offsetting the carbon released in it’s replacement

Fernando (in Brazil)
March 29, 2011 12:29 pm
cba
March 29, 2011 12:33 pm

thanks for reminding me how much I love Dilbert.

Stilgar
March 29, 2011 12:39 pm

Burch beat me to the sceptic…
How many warmists does it take to change a light bulb?
Pretty soon none, light bulbs will have been banned. You can only chage LED’s and CFL tubes. (look up the definition, most all say a “bulb” is incandesant or heated wire or the glass surrounding it, since the name originated because of its similar shape to the bulb of a plant).

Carter
March 29, 2011 12:57 pm

How many skeptics does it take to change a lightbulb?
None. In spite of millions of dollars worth of super-computers modelling that the lightbulb has burned out, politicians eager to tax us to death because the bulb will burn out unless we radically change our lifestyles, and regardless of a cabal of lightbulb scientists (worried that their phony-baloney jobs are in jeopardy) that are urging us that the bulb is about to hit a tipping point causing bulbs everywhere to go out (but, mysteriously, they won’t divulge their data or methods, thus causing everyone to remain “in the dark”), the skeptics prefer to use their eyes and see that the bulb is still burning brightly.

Stilgar
March 29, 2011 1:06 pm

TonyG says:

The way I hear it, it’s more like:
Step 1: Decide “Green Technology” costs less and is better
Step 2: Build it
Step 3: Ignore basic physics and economics and claim you were right.

Note quite right either… It is actually 2 phases together.
Greens
Step 1: Know that “Green Technology” is for the best regardless of whatever it may cost, but know other people are less enlightened than you so you lie and say it is cheap and will create jobs.
Step 2: Pursuade the government to make conventional technology cost more and give subsidies to invest in “Green Technology”
Step 3: Pressure companies to build it
Step 4: Realize that even with subsidies and increased cost of conventional tech, Green tech still costs more money so convice government to ban or severly restrict conventional technology by telling everyone that the loss in jobs in conventional tech will be replaced by those of Green jobs.
Step 5: Be smug in the fact that even if the green technology is found to be a poor replacement for the conventional tech, you know that it is very unlikely for the conventional tech to come back because that was the goal to begin with. You dont care if it costs more or people lost their job because it was the earth you are saving.
Companies
Step 1: Resist changing conventional tech that makes money
Step 2: With higher cost of conventional tech and subsidies, you invest lots of money into green tech
Step 3: Though not quite ready for production, be pressured to convert some of your manufacturing to building it at a high cost. Make claims that are only true in a labratory setting.
Step 4: With most of your plants off-line and not making money, you can either retrofit your existing plants or you look at setting up a new factory to produce the new items at the cheapest cost. The cheapest solution is to build a new factory in China.
Step 5: Even though people hate your new product, you pressure the government to not change the law back to what it was because all of the money you invested would have been waisted and you no longer have the capability to make the older product you once had (so to switch back would cost even more money and could put you out of business).

Malcolm Miller
March 29, 2011 2:00 pm

No graphic of Dilbert or anything else appeared on my screen – just an empty rectangle.
REPLY: pebkac or browser settings

Malcolm Miller
March 29, 2011 2:07 pm

Retraction – just a computer glitch. I see them now!

Ranger Rick
March 29, 2011 4:22 pm

How many warmists does it take to change a light bulb?
I think we need an international panel of scientists that only we choose that have like minds to study the problem(If any dissent, we’ll throw them out). After we spend billions of dollars on computer modeling and data fudging, we will get a consensus that we like and brow beat everyone else who doesn’t agree with us. We’ll get a sensationalistic media to report that if we don’t change the bulb we’re all doomed. Lastly, we’ll declare that the only way to change the bulb without dooming ourselves is to put up a windmill to power it. I just hope no birds get killed in the process, but progress is progress.

brc
March 29, 2011 4:44 pm

I recently went to a comedy festival where a well known comedian (an american) was making fun of the environmental movement. The basic thrust of the joke was that we will end up so laden with guilt that we wont be able to drink a glass of water without hiding from the trees outside and apologising to them for needing it more than they do.
Obviously the delivery was a lot better than my summary!
The crowd did laugh, but I notice there was a bit of nervous laughter and shifting eyes to see whether it was socially acceptable to laugh at ridiculous green jokes.
I always knew the end would come when the comedians started taking open shots at the madness. When you see a sketch show openly mocking someone, you know that group has fallen from grace. Comedians are numbers people – they have to choose targets that they know most of the people are with them on.

jcrabb
March 29, 2011 4:59 pm

Kind of typical of the rejectors mind set, one post heralds a new green technology ie sea-freshwater electricity generation then a link saying that there are no green developments in technology ie Dilbert, how is it possible to hold onto such conflicting, contradictory thoughts?

Clay Ross
March 29, 2011 7:51 pm

steveta_uk says:
March 29, 2011 at 11:24 am
Roger Longstaff (7:32 am)
I recently had to change a light fitting for the mother-in-law, as the old one had burned out and exploded…
Sorry to hear of the awful fate of your mother-in-law; what a horrid way to go. /humor off

Phil's Dad
March 29, 2011 7:53 pm

Turns out the bulb didn’t need changing, it’s just that someone had hidden it.

Editor
March 29, 2011 8:38 pm

Is the lightbulb in a unionized workplace?

Frederick Michael
March 29, 2011 9:49 pm

How many Al Gores does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one. He just grabs on to the bulb and waits for the whole world to revolve around him.

Gary Hladik
March 29, 2011 9:50 pm

Rich (March 29, 2011 at 10:44 am), that was hilarious!

Mechanical P.E. & MBA
March 29, 2011 10:08 pm

jcrabb says:
March 29, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Kind of typical of the rejectors mind set, one post heralds a new green technology ie sea-freshwater electricity generation then a link saying that there are no green developments in technology ie Dilbert, how is it possible to hold onto such conflicting, contradictory thoughts?
jcrabb: I think the point here is that these new green technologies are not “real” in the sense that they are cost prohibitive (thousands more per KW(e) installed, take tremendous taxpayer support (sometimes in excess of 95% of CAPx), have other unintended consequences (frequency control/environmental), require substantial real estate (sf/power density) and generally do not live up to the hype surrounding them.
They are sold based on future cost reductions (wind, solar and digesters) but have tremendous O & M costs not originally calculated initially. Sometimes it is a wee bit of research that shows a hint of production (leaf solar) but data and scalability is often not mentioned in the article (sea and fresh water battery). Most of us in the engineering community have grown to be skeptical because we have been burned one too many times.

Shevva
March 30, 2011 12:25 am

REPLY: pebkac or browser settings
pebkac – Hum, Problem between Keyboard and Chair?

Alexander K
March 30, 2011 3:29 am

Dilbert gave me my best and biggest laugh in weeks!

March 30, 2011 4:41 am

pebkac – problem exists between keyboard and chair.
Close cousin to Identified ten tee with numbers.

David
March 30, 2011 6:04 am

Dilbert is so accurate its painful…
Re light bulbs: in my local UK supermarket – a few incandescent ones left at 25p/40c each.
A HUGE pallet-mounted display of CFC lamps – 10p/16c each….
How long, I wonder, before the store decides it requires the sales space and they finish up in landfill..?

Coalsoffire
March 30, 2011 6:30 am

Today’s strip is equally interesting. The “emerging green technology” field is a thriving source of scams.

Pull My Finger
March 30, 2011 11:19 am

Dilbert is truth.
I have a couple friends in H.R. (i.e. Catburts) who’s boss refused to allow any Dilbert strips or paraphinalia in their building.
Check out his blog as well, he’s not afraid to throw stuff up on the wall to see if it will stick.
http://dilbert.com/blog
He’s getting even more cantankerous in his old-ish age.

regeya
March 31, 2011 10:58 am

“Actually have 3 dead CFLs sitting on my desk that lasted less than a year in my office light. Sure didn’t see any savings here.”
All of ’em I’ve had like that have been made in China. Some Chinese incandescents I’ve purchased have lasted a whopping 6 weeks.
Methinks the real problem is that slave labor doesn’t give a damn about doing a good job.

%d bloggers like this: