From the “That’s going to leave a mark” department.
Scott Adams, who has recently written on his blog about his doubts about the certainty of climate science predictions, takes on climate science and the ugliness surrounding it with his Sunday comic strip. It’s hilarious how he states so clearly the issue at hand in a simple final panel. Of course, the usual suspects will scream foul, probably demand retractions and boycotts, and maybe even at the next pointless climate march, we’ll’ see “Down with Dilbert!” signs. Michael Mann might even sue due to the scientist looking something like him.
The response will be entirely predictable, but for those people that aren’t climatic automatons, the fact that a worldwide read major comic strip has taken a position will likely sink in.
Due to copyright limitations, I can’t show the entire strip, only the first few panels, but click the image to see the entire Sunday comic, or follow this link.
h/t to Eric Worrall
Scott Adams is making a interesting statement with this cartoon. Previously I believe he has stated being public about his climate skepticism was dangerous to his financial health (among other things, he has 2 restaurants in Pleasanton CA)
Adams has said that he’s no longer receiving much money from his speaking engagements in the past two years, now that he’s become controversial. He’s said that he used to be among the highest-rate speakers listed by his speakers’ bureau.
Wait. What? You mean he isn’t receiving checks from Big Oil? That’s odd.
“Adams has said that he’s no longer receiving much money from his speaking engagements in the past two years, now that he’s become controversial”
The collectivist drones go where they’re told. And think what they’re told. And do what they’re told. They do not think for themselves and this makes them dangerous in large numbers.
He burnt his bridges when he publicly came out against Clinton.
A brave man. And already sufficiently wealthy so that he can afford to be so.
“Michael Mann might even sue due to the scientist looking something like him.”
There’s no way that would work. The scientist in the cartoon is wearing glasses, while Michael Mann, as far as I know, doesn’t wear glasses. I mean, maybe he does, but most pictures show him without glasses. Think about it. Clark Kent has effectively hidden himself behind glasses for over 75 years now and no one has figured out they are one in the same. Clearly, with the glasses, the scientist in the cartoon panel isn’t Michael Mann.
Supermann?
I don’t think he will sue. He would have to say that he never said such things…. Heh.
The fat, bald, stupid guy in the cartoon looks honest. He can’t be Michael Mann!
When did climate scientists ever ignore a climate model that “looked wrong?” They stick them all into an “ensemble” and pretend that the errors in one will offset the errors in others. More warmunist nonsense.
The L A Times publishes Dilbert so it probably won’t be too long before the Times bans this comic strip which is now in violation of the Times climate alarmism censorship policy.
“Scott Adams Tells You Who is More Anti-Science”
His comics are so succinct, intelligent and funny. His videos; not so much.
Ah so he disbelieves in economic models.
the models that tell us taxing carbon will destroy the economy.
got it.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160696999931/how-to-know-you-won-a-political-debate-on-the
I hate to tell you this, but Dilbert is a cartoon character.
I don’t foresee Daffy Duck arguing for a “carbon” tax. Do you?
Donald Duck
From my experience in dealing with all this weather and climate stuff, wild hand waving immediately precedes, the “and then a miracle occurs” moment!
Thanks for that, SteveC (oldie but a goodie!).
Uh oh, Dilbert is entering verboten territory. A monetary/economic system that doubles debt every 8 years must not be brought into the same conversation as a natural system that doubles an insignificant gas like CO2 every 150 years. A rational person might do the math and conclude debt is a much, much greater concern to humanity than CO2.
Oh dear, Josh has some worthy competition!
Here’s a link to all Scott Adams’s climate change blog threads:
http://blog.dilbert.com/tagged/climate-science
Brilliant. And accurate. As usual.
Spend some time reading the scientific literature rather than comics if you really want to pull your head out of the sand and educate yourselves
[Please do not insult comics by comparing them to pal-reviewed, self-called scientific literature. 8<) .mod]
A little more crass but funnier.
http://pickeringpost.com/kyola/resources/articles/Cartoon-Climate-change_grants.jpg
Then the diagnosis (via coffee with Scott Adams):
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1zqKVAkbMyZxB
Subheading: folks “triggered” by a criticism of economic models into raging about “climate denial” are suffering from “cognitive dissonance.”
The best part of it is, Adams does not dispute ANYTHING. He merely asked a question (through his character) and got the stock answer that Mann gave before congress! And yes, the beauty of it is, it is all true.
It is not that contemporary long-term economic models are necessarily wrong (how would anyone know?) It is that they produce all sorts of scary projections in a range of areas. Most particularly social security/pension provision. But media interest is minimal and no one flies into marching hysterics. The topic of provision of old age benefits was mildly prominent in the 1990s. Someone called GWBush proposed ‘fixing’ US social security around 2000. How did that work out and who’s bothered? Compare and contrast with climate.
That’s the beauty of climate models for their perpetrators, who will be enjoying their taxpayer-funded pensions long before any of their scary, pretend projections could ever come to pass, which of course they won’t.
‘Dilbert’ must be pulled from our nations newspapers at once, and Scott Adams must be investigated before congress.
Sounds time consuming. The verdict is settled by your betters already. It’s the stake for him and the sooner the better.
Ya gotta remember – part of the modern crucifixion process is the ‘investigation’, the dragging through the mud in front of the city walls – which is always best when you’re making an example out of someone. ‘Time consumption’ is part of the goal.
The answer, of course, is “physics”. You add an IR absorber to your system, without some compensating factor, the temperature rises. Pure, basic, physics.
There are always compensating mechanisms in our complex, homoestatic climate system. Also physics.
That’s why Hansen’s loony Venus Express never left the station, even when CO2 was at 7000 ppm.
The real answer is a physic.