Oh, the hilarity. In case you missed it, over the weekend the Dilbert Sunday Comic took on “climate science” in a hilarious way. I predicted the usual suspects would have the usual predictable responses, and so it goes with Dr. Michael Mann. Scott Adams, the creator of “Dilbert” has been active on Twitter over the comic, and he got exactly what we expect from “top” climate scientists like Mann.
H/t to Josh.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why oh WHY didn’t we all put money on this in Vegas?????
I hope Mann doesn’t mention ‘Good Sense of Humour’ on his personal statement résumé. Someone needs to tell him to man-up!
Someone needs to show Mann Cowboy-Up! Real men adapt to climate!
Loser…he still struggles with the Piltdown Man riff.
Because the bookies in Vegas are far smarter than the average climate “scientist?”
Please don’t insult the Vegas bookies.
toorightmate…, is it kind of like insulting Mohammad? John Christy may say that it is what with the events wherein the loony left decided to use bullets to emphasize their point? Words are violence don’t you know and bullets are…, well, just a couple of the guys out with their mates having a little bit of fun don’t you know. Not as bad as the awful words used by the anti-science right. Man oh Mann, give me a friggin break. He truly believes that reality is what is in this little mind and the rest of us be damned!
How would that work, Aphan?
You’ call a bookie and ask for what odds that an egocentric irritable rather vicious megalomaniac reacts badly?
Bookies will be all to glad to tell you to just give them all of your money now and save yourself grief.
Apparently global warming causes the thinning of climate scientists’ skin.
With such thin skin, you’d think Mann would welcome warming – you’d think he’d get cold.
Perhaps it’s the low solar activity.
It’s low cerebral activity.
Since not all climate scientists have such thin skin, I suspect it’s genetic.
Perhaps one of his ancestors was hit really hard with a hockey stick causing one of their descendant’s DNA to become “unwound”?
Or became too tightly wound ..
“Apparently global warming causes the thinning of climate scientists’ skin.”
I’d extend that deduction to thinning hair as well I think.
I saw this on Twitter and was confused, what was Mann’s response?
I don’t know, he’s blocked me too.
Let’s see if this helps:
?dl=0
?dl=0
?dl=0
?dl=0
?dl=0
?dl=0
?dl=0
It loses a little in the chop and paste editing translation; but it is easy to see the same tired flogging of refuted and false science.
No independent replications, though lots of specious claims.
Massive abuse of the Dilbert comic, characters, jokes.
Amusing to see maniacal supporters claiming fair use, when Mann’s lawsuit of Mark Steyn rehashes a third party rehash of someone else’s statement.
The quite well known list of CAGW pucker-ups are definitely not the brightest CAGW supporters
Me too.
Two Mann posts in there jumped out at me: Mann is still using his Hockey stick with the appended modern measurements at the end to generate the hockey stick shape even after denying doing it during the climategate email flap. At least here it’s in red so it’s easier to see but since no legend was included you only know the meaning if you are already familiar with the data. And the second was how Mann talks about not even seeing comments he doesn’t like by using filtering, just like how he filters the data so he only sees what he wants the outcome to be.
He blocked me and I didnt even go to follow him. There was a reference to one of his tweets, so I went to look and I found out I was blocked a few weeks ago. Now I block people but never before hand.. If someone shows up on my sight and gives me krap a few times, I say , okay see you later. And that is only if I catch them. I never look at replies unless someone in my trusted inner circle alerts me to someone that may be simply trying to cause trouble But I have never pre-empted someone because 1) I dont know most of the people that follow me and 2) you gotta be pretty darn arrogant to think someone is going to follow you. Seriously. I dont sit there and think, so and so is going to want to follow me so I better block him. Who does that? Why would you assume that unless you think you are someone special. I know what Dr Mann thinks, we all know what he thinks, so what the heck. You see that its why its great actually forecasting the weather and what these guys are really after. They want people to follow them, but here is the problem. They have to keep saying things about a known. THE CLIMATE CHANGES! They need to keep making crazy statements so people will look. But you know, I know, and anyone that loves the weather knows, that the WEATHER DOES CRAZY THINGS and we love watching it. And it just so happens, that for whatever reason, alot of people like to exchange ideas about what you actually have a chance at seeing and forecasting, some weather event. And there are still enough people out there, that if you show them you love something and go to the wall every day, well they might like to know your opinion. Listen when I was in college, the pecking order was Dynamists, Synopticians , Climo guys. The dynamists looked down on us ( you cant do the math, which in my case, was true to some extent, I did enough like alot of other forecasters to get my degree) But we looked down on the climo guys, They cant forecast the weather, so they are in climo. Now there is a reversal where the climo guys pushing AGW are the rock stars and they love it. The probably dont love the weather, but they love being rock stars, saying things to get attention You see the WEATHER, if they looked does things every day to get attention! BUT THEY DONT EVEN LOOK AT THAT Look at the late April and now May patterns, I put up several almost identical analogs in the pre nino years of 76 and 77, 2 of the craziest springs I ever saw, that you could forecast the large scale events that as soon as they happen, the climatariat comes out and says, see more climate change You had a freak MJO event in Feb, and not one of them said boo about it. They wait for the weather to do things that they are ignorant of, then claim its because of what their work is all about. That is a large part of what this is about. But you see that I am used to it The dynamists I knew used to look at me like I was a neanderthal ( partly cause I really crossed the line, actually wrestled, or at least I called it that) and now I have AGW climo people that do. Been there, done that, The difference is I could never do what a PHD modeler does and I know it, so I said, fine I am a caveman, do you see that trough coming Day 6, it might snow! And I am happy! . As far as going back and understanding what has driven the climate of the planet, not only do I love that and have been into it since being a kid, but I know event after event that alot of the AGW climo people today seem totally ignorant of, or know about, but refuse to acknowledge. Both disqualifies them if the true pursuit of the truth of weather and climate is the mission. Carry on wayward sons!
Dilbert Nails it
It’s great to see some courage by Dilbert among all the firings of fact checkers and anyone else not chanting loudly or waving the little red Gore book. America’s version of the cultural revolution will fizzle out one of these days with the same no consequences outcome for the promoters of course.
Great cartoon. Adams has Mann pegged.
More like Mann was pegged. He certainly act like someone with a cob up his …
They just don’t have a sense of humor except they are famous in the Sunday Comics! Thank you Scott Adams!
Mann, this shit sets me on fire! It’s worse than hot peppers! It’s worse than we thought!
Is he saying, essentially, “how dare a cartoon poke fun at me?” How ironic. Sorry, moronic. I always gets those two confused…
How long till Mann sues?
Mann already lost a similar libel case in Canada. I’m surprised he’s still able to pursue this one since he won’t comply with Steyn’s discovery requests. Maybe that means the judge is prejudiced.
Could be anyone
http://imgur.com/a/9nsKq
‘Sides, Scott put glasses on the toon . . Insurance ; )
It’s worse than he thought:
Could be anyone .
mohammed who?
Tenn — cute, like it — Eugene WR Gallun
A very lame response from Dr.Mann, at the very least I was hoping for a lawyers letter or the threat of a court case. He’s gone soft in his old age!
Adams didn’t say that character was Michael Mann. Mann’s lawyers would have a difficult time getting that to stick.
He started out soft-in the head at least.
But, since quite a few of the warmingista crowd have that kind of goatee, Mann can’t sue – his beard pattern isn’t unique.
Is it true that Micheal Mann has a sock puppet he calls ‘Carlos Danger”?
That was Anthony Weiner.
Think that was a joke.
Carlos Dangerfield, given the amount of respect Mann seems to get.
Steve from Rockwood — You turned a loser into a winner. Con grats — Eugene WR Gallun
Mann dishes it out, but cannot take it. Sure sign of a bully. Steyn will pulverize him when it finally gets to trial.
Known here colloquially as a “Mulligan’s pup – can give it but not take it”
Rud, Mann is doing everything he can to avoid trial. Avoiding discovery is the half of it; he can’t make a case in court without allowing the ability of Steyn to introduce counter arguments.
I’m so old I remember when it was the old, conservative guys who didn’t have a sense of humour.
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb.
A: That’s not funny.
Thank you for that. 🙂
Q: How many conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?
A: No idea, ask my manservant.
“The Reverend Badger. May 15, 2017 at 2:17 pm
Q: How many conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?
A: No idea, ask my manservant.”
Your stereotype is about half a century out of date.
The younger generation is the most conservative in many decades.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/health/millennials-conservative-generations/
Liberals only live by outdated stereotypes
oh, i know! i know!
24- 1 to screw it and 23 for emotional support!
(i made that up on the fly at a meeting of the feminist women’s health center – it went down well)
The two versions of the feminist light bulb joke I heard some twentyfive years ago were the Not Funny bellowed in a fem voice or That’s Sexist! in the same tone.
Only one, but it takes a long time, and the light bulb has to want to change.
.
.
Oops, sorry, that was a psychologist joke.
Psychiatrist.
While I was cleaning up, I came across a Ted Scott story, Flying Against Time from 1929. What a different time. University professors were respected members of the community and had servants.
I’m old enough to remember when this made sense:
Q: How many Episcopalians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Three. Two to mix the martinis and another to call the electrician.
Q: How many Climate ‘Scientists’ does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Do you want it warmer or colder, brighter or dimmer, redder or greener?
Q: How many software engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. It’s a hardware problem.
That one is the winner! 🙂
How many lesbians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Two, but they need to be very very small to both fit inside . . .
Ok, now that is the funniest!
Psycho
the rapist
It really amazes me how leftists automatically assume that anyone with money is conservative.
Well since independent thought was never a strong selling point for left wing philosophy, I guess it’s understandable.
Q: How many conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?
A: No idea, ask my manservant
Manservant: I don’t know. I leave that to the woman servant.
Feminist: That’s not funny.
Eugene WR Gallun
MarkW May 16, 2017 at 6:42 am
True. You can’t swing a cat on Wall Street without hitting a Democrat.
And Trump was elected by blue collar voters. Not that he’s very conservative.
Trump was the only one competing for the Blue Collar vote.
My 30-plus year old college educated daughter is more conservative than most of you bozos. The coming generations will not be fooled by the CAGW crowd. The university snowflakes have you fooled as to the mentality of the Millennials.
Younger generations have more information than you can imagine. They are at least as intelligent as you-all are. The CAGW crowd can’t fool them for long.
Relax. If you can see through the B.S., so can our children. MSM hype is transparent; kids learn that early on.
Dave Fair wrote: “Younger generations have more information than you can imagine. They are at least as intelligent as you-all are.”
All of me is measurably more intelligent than most of them. Anyone with internet has access to more information of a recent nature; that is to say, content created with computers in the first place. The correctness of a lot of it is doubtful. But rather a lot of information is “BC”, Before Computer, and even more is “BG”, Before Google.
My children have not much taken advantage of this huge online library of knowledge but they sure know how to find short videos of cats doing silly things made by people that don’t think to turn their cellphones sideways to match the orientation of the typical computer screen.
So while it may be that on average today’s 20 something has a similar intelligence to 40 something, the younger seem not to utilize it.
Michael 2, you have no idea as to what younger people are into. Give it up, Troglodyte.
Dave Fair writes: “Michael 2, you have no idea as to what younger people are into.”
All hail Dave Fair, the mind reader!
Anyway, you are right in a way. I cannot think of anything that would serve as a reliable predictor of youth, other than youth itself of course.
Q. How many climate scientists does it take to wash a second floor window.
A. Two. One to wash the window and one to hold the ladder.
Q. How many climate scientists does it take to wash a ground floor window.
A. Three. One to wash the window, one to hold the ladder, and one to dig the hole.
“Three. One to wash the window. Four. You left out a computer modeler to design the hole.
And, if the government subsidy is involved you have to add three wonder men. What is a wonder man? Glade you asked. A wonder man is someone leaning on the shovel as you walk by and you are ask yourself “I wonder why is that guy is getting paid.”
How does a single mathematician change an infinite amount of lightbulbs?
He/she changes (n = ) 1 and the rest change by induction.
How about n=1/0?
Very interesting article that seems quite apropos given the joke in the comic.
On the Foundation of Economic Education’s website, they have the following article: Be Wary of the Orwellian “Enlightened” Class
It’s really well worth reading in full. I quote the bit I found most thought provoking
Mann and company are exemplary scientists. They know their theories are incomplete and that they will surely change. Every day they uncover new problems caused by climate change, and it’s always worse than we thought.
Great quote.
In fact, it’s a great article.
Many thanks for the link. Excellent article. I am not sure “doxastically” helps anyone but dictionary compilers but linking Orwell’s insights to scientism is very fruitful – at least for me.
Well, he explains it, Bernie:
I particularly liked these following four paragraphs:
And points out that
MRW: I understand what it means and he did explain it, but I did have to look it up. My point is that the word is superfluous to the argument that he makes. One is either open to and seeks disconfirmation or one is/does not.
Bernie,
Me too.
In fact, for the past 30 years, I’ve had to look up epistemological or epistemology every time I encounter either one. Ditto dialectical. And a couple of others. Every time. I have a blind spot to retention.
But my point, and not said artfully, was that this writer had the kindness of clarity, after placing his big words in the road, of pointing out what his boulders meant. I didn’t mean to chastise you.
MRW:
No offense taken. Perhaps the big words will carry more weight with the regulars at HuffPost. If it gets them to start looking at actual observational climate data it will be worth it.
BTW. Who is Sean Inglis?
A lot of tweeters responding to the Michael Mann tweet as not seeing the humor. Now I can see this as just as funny!
From Mann tweets, I reckon Mann is also an expert in psychology. He just diagnosed a lot of people of Dunning-Kruger. Spelled Dunning-Kruggerism.
I admire that man. He’s not only an expert in physics more than a physicist, in statistics more than a statistician, in chaos theory more than a chaos theory expert, in computer science more than a computer scientist, he’s now a psychologist, too.
And don’t forget his Nobel Prize! His accomplishments are half vast.
He is from an organisatuion with Institutional Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy.
‘s
Help!
I don’t (EVAH) do tweets, but in the article above, I only see 3 tweets: “Josh”, followed by “Sean Inglis”, followed by “Scott Adams” – where is the tweet from Mann?
Adams says that Mann has blocked him.
I don’t understand. What did Michael Mann say?
Some quotes from twitter:
“Scott Adams (“Dilbert”) is an equal-opportunity science denier:”
“I’m now convinced that Scott Adams’ followers are the text-book cases of Dunning-Kruggerism”
“Honored to be featured (?) in Scott Adams (“Dilbert”) expression of climate ignorance.”
You can see Mann’s responses on his twitter account:
https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/863899446744162304
ROFL!
Dr Sietz must be on cloud nine that someone actually praised his puerile and infantile attempts at parody let alone noticed them!
Yes, we look at the models, and some of the data. And we conclude that Mann is a technical mouse and much of his ilk ain’t much better.
Um….was permission to “edit” a piece of someones work, likely having property rights on it, asked for or granted??
Oh, just a moment, we’ll just act as though it hasto do with clime change, so fiddling with the original, won’t be an issue.
DBH – probably qualifies as ‘fair comment’ under copyright laws.
And, from Scott Adams’ perspective, just circulates it further…
Oh, no …..M. Mann fiddling with the data again! Plagerista!
They look at lots of cartoons and pick the ones they like.
Look more carefully at Mann’s cartoon and notice the intellectually dishonest bait-and-switch. The original Dilbert Cartoon has the scientist asserting that human activity is warming the Earth and “will lead to a global catastrophe” to which the responsive question is “how do scientists know that?” Mann has to change this dialogue in order to respond, by instead having the scientist blandly assert that “human activity is warming the Earth and will change climate.”
So sad…he wants to act like cartoons are beneath him, yet he cares enough to not only look at the cartoons, but edit them. He is such a fragile, insecure ego-driven little man who knows his work is of low quality.
but the parody is splendid in its irony!
after the paroxyms of outrage over a cartoon
and some effort to parody the cartoon
the punchline is ‘we do more than read cartoons’ (and please don’t notice just how very much moar!)
i lolled!
like a wall of text declaring how much the crybaby doesn’t care is funny.
for some reason an old carly simon song was running thru my head… ‘you’re so vain…’
Too bad the IPCC didn’t look at more than Mann’s cartoon temperature line in MBH98.
But, but, shouldn’t the climate scientist answer — It’s easy — we just look out our window. — ?????
Eugene WR Gallun
The snapshot seems to be missing a tweet from MM.
Caligula Jones: ‘I’m so old I remember when it was the old, conservative guys who didn’t have a sense of humour.’
Well, in a way, ‘Progressivism’ is its own form of hyper-conservatism. When I was a college student, pop-culture was on the verge of the ‘hip-hop’ revolution – with filthy, profanity-ridden lyrics – something that had been ‘progressing’ (pun intended), for the last several generations. There really couldn’t be MORE sex and drugs, or raunchiness, so I remember thinking at the time, ‘well, what’s next after this? Are the youth going to rebel by taking us back to religious conformity?
And fast forward a few decades, and that’s actually happened – it’s just a new religion they’re enforcing so strictly. If you look at Progressivism (particularly as influenced by Gaeaism) as the new religion, this is very true – there are behavioral, and belief codes, that are rigidly enforced – free speech, which was once a structure in America, is now considered an actual threat – all on an ideology picked whole from a base of redirected Catholic-guilt. And the practitioners are as tight-assed as Dana Carvey PRETENDED to be as a ‘Church Lady’ – even on formerly ‘Leftist’ issues. Where once ‘Hustler’ was defended by the Left, look at their modern attitudes about sex – even something as prosaic as an attractive woman in a bikini on a calendar, for example is ‘misogyny’ – (like I told my hyper-feminist kid-sister – ‘gee, it doesn’t FEEL like misogyny’).
In my day, ‘liberal’ meant pretty much ‘anything goes’. These days, ‘Progressives’ are literally offended by EVERYTHING. It’s the difference between the open and closed mind. I used to believe counter-culture types were open-minded – but experience has proved the opposite to be the case – they’re the ones that are emotionally, and often irrationally committed to their cause.
The only thing I can say is, where is Sam Kinison when you need him?
I think it is hilarious. The strip did not question AGW (indeed Adams is a believer). It merely QUESTIONED the economic impact. And the left is going ape-crap crazy over it!
They do not even realize the strip is factually accurate, all you have to do is substitute Dr. John Christy for Dilbert!
“the left is going ape-crap crazy over it”
Usually leftist arguments are only load-bearing when they are supported by lots and lots of taxpayer dollars. And of course free promotion, publicity, credibility, and amplification from the Moron Stream Media.
You just figured that out?
Look I have been telling you guys since 2007 that you DONT have to deny the climate science
(and say stupid stuff like its a hoax), to take a stand against the Policy.
The simple fact is the science tells us that c02 is a risk. Yup. None is bad, some is good, too much is a risk.
How we approach that risk has very little to do with actual physical science.
But no, you clowns go around predicting ice ages, doing half assed science on blogs, and generally discrediting yourselves. That means you enter the real debate (POLICY) with zero credibility
OK. So how much is good and how much is too much?
Main points of debate:
How do we extract more money without appearing like that is our main focus? (focus on risk rather than benefit).
How can we get the revenue stream flowing faster? (hype the heavy risk, not the benefit).
How do we regain credibility after it has become obvious that the models that we have embraced and used to hype the risk are so far off it’s laughable? (attack the credibility of those point out our deficiencies.)
How do regain credibility after our co-conspirators have been caught lying and cheating? (attack the credibility of those that caught them cheating and lying.)
wouldn t “none” be the risk steve ?
Mosh, has it occurred to you that the POLITICAL a$pect of climate science (“The seance is settled”, “97%”,
“The Hockey Stick” etc) is what has squashed actual debate (an honest exchange of ideas, data, hypothesis) about the science involved in “climate science”.
Two yes or no questions:
1. Was there a Medieval Warm Period?
2. Does Mann’s Hockey Stick stand up?
Bonus 2007 question!
3. Was “An Inconvenient Truth” RealClim …er… Real science?
You forgot that also “too little is a risk”. It is intellectually dishonest to just say none is bad, some is good, too much is a risk. Can you tell me where the exact lines are between too little and too much? If not, then how do you construct policy without even knowing whether you are doing more harm than good? Then there’s the question of how much of a risk “too much” is, which we will obviously disagree on.
The simple fact is the science tells us that c02 is a risk…..
absolutely……it was so low new plants evolved
Mosher, don’t drink and post.
“That means you enter the real debate (POLICY) with zero credibility”
I don’t need to prove my side (or even take one). It is up to the warmists to create a side, define policy, demand money, convince Congress (or the public; which in a perfect world would be about the same thing).
Steve is right. The left is organised and wrong, the right is disorganised and mostly correct. It needs discipline, especially in its messages and PR. And yes, the precautionary principle says we ought to act, but economics should tell us the right policy, not ‘nothing is too expensive if it helps avoid imminent extinction’. They will lose that fight. We have 100 years before economic impacts of AGW even begin to turn negative.
1) We aren’t denying climate science.
2) There is no evidence that too much CO2 is a risk. Heck, the science says that when CO2 levels were 7000ppm, (not the measely 400ppm that has your panties in a twist) the earth not only survived, it thrived.
3) What’s wrong with predicting ice ages, they have happened before and will happen again. What are you some kind of climate science denier?
Steven,
There is no such animal as “the climate science.” The study of climate relies on inputs from dozens of the physical and natural sciences.
Why is 400ppm such a risk? 500?1000? I call BS on the whole thing.
It is demonstrably a ho@x, as was evident even before the Climategate emails.
It is demonstrably not science. There is no such thing as “climate science”, which is GIGO computer gaming. Real climatologists, like the late, great Father of Climatology, Reid Bryson, and late, great Father of Hurricanology, Bill Gray, know that doubling CO2 will have virtually no effect on Earth’s climate system, as should be obvious from geologic history. Not that it’s guaranteed that we’ll ever even get to 560 ppm.
The greatest physicists in the world know it’s not science. Freeman Dyson, Will Happer, Ivar Giaever, et al, know that 400 ppm is better for the planet than 300 ppm, and 600 ppm would be better still and 1200 ppm best of all.
There is no risk from doubling CO2. It’s all good.
Thank God we now have a president who knows the sc@m is a ho@x.
“The simple fact is the science tells us that c02 is a risk.”
Which “science” tells us that? Yours?
Steven Mosher
May 15, 2017 at 2:46 pm
Mosher, you never fail to amaze.
With all do respect to your stealth, intellect and cleverness, I have to say that at this time only. the only thing arguable is the matter of the “parley”, and I hope you really get it…..
You spinning about it in your post as in trying to portrayed at this point as fair will be a huge waste….
Is more than unfair, it stands clearly as also very devious…
If you see some light and opportunity on a “parley” in one particular point as most probably offered by your side earlier…you are advised to have a go for it but with a lot of caution… provided that in this case it makes some sense to you….
If you want some thing back you have only but just to ask for it, but fairly….otherwise……ok you will already know the outcome…….another one will get it….a very pissed off guy with you lot, will get it…and that will be really unfair to you lot, even when you may very well deserve it
Please do gamble your chances with this one….your call.. 🙂
Cheers
Funny that you wrote an entire book discrediting the alarmism, isn’t it? And then declared C02 ‘a problem’.
‘Living’ is a risk. Going control freak is just a personality defect.
Joel Snider
May 16, 2017 at 12:14 pm
Are you addressing and commenting about me?!
Just checking to be sure….
cheers
The demonstrable risk is from too little CO2. Too much, not so much.
The optimum level is about 1300 ppm. Plants can’t use more than that.
So you have known since 2007 that the bat crap crazy alarmists call anyone who questions the economic impact a “denier”? That is apparently your argument. I merely pointed out that all Adams did was question the impact (I said nothing about my beliefs) and they are calling him a denier. I pointed out that Mann did just that (and then denied it).
Maybe you should read what is written. As of now, you seem to be the one with the “recent” revelation. I am just laughing at the fools that have but a single conditioned response when anyone strays, even minutely, from their religious beliefs.
Whiten: ‘Are you addressing and commenting about me?!’
No, my comment was aimed at Mr. Mosher – sorry, the thread got long, so that was not clear, and I did not clarify.
Joel Snider
May 17, 2017 at 12:22 pm
🙂
I just tried to be fanny.. ;)…..and I know I suck at it..:)
thanks.
cheers
Steven Mosher
May 15, 2017 at 2:46 pm
Mosher……..Are we , or are we not ever going a do this?
If it helps you, giving you a chance to show how silly, crazy, or illusive a guy like me could be….is now with in your reach…
I have got to learn my lesson…..so give it to me if that is not much to ask.
If it helps you, let me say this, there is not a long enough window in this one, but still is there for now.
If you want the chance to prove me wrong beyond any doubt , now is the time…..
Please consider it carefully……All my chips are banged at one simple card, and on top of it it reads…Mosher…..so it is your call, now or never…..Your choice…..Mosher, please do prove me wrong with this, your call..
Hopefully at the very least you understand this…..how much more you could wish for……!.
Hopefully you feel better now Steven.
Oh joy …
this is gonna be fun.
Don’t step on Superman’s cape.
Don’t wee into the wind.
Don’t tick off people that have a sense of humor and can draw funny caricatures …
especially if you’re already a caricature and have no sense of humor.
I wish you were right. Unfortunately, the more likely outcome is that Dilbert will be dropped from most media outlets, and Dilbert merchandise will be removed from stores. The global warming commissars are both humourless and ruthless.
And the end result will be that Scott Adams will sell less merchandise, but all on his own website, and thus keep the full markup for himself. less volume, but more GP. What’s not to like? Plus, his supporters will start a Buycott.
Climate Change; So easy a Tweetmann can do it!
What was Mann’s reaction? All I see here is Josh and Scott Adams….