Monday Mirthiness: #Dilbert gets Mann-handled

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.

205 thoughts on “Monday Mirthiness: #Dilbert gets Mann-handled

    • I hope Mann doesn’t mention ‘Good Sense of Humour’ on his personal statement résumé. Someone needs to tell him to man-up!

      • 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.

      • Let’s see if this helps:
        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

      • 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!

    • 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.

  1. They just don’t have a sense of humor except they are famous in the Sunday Comics! Thank you Scott Adams!

  2. Mann, this shit sets me on fire! It’s worse than hot peppers! It’s worse than we thought!

  3. Is he saying, essentially, “how dare a cartoon poke fun at me?” How ironic. Sorry, moronic. I always gets those two confused…

  4. 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!

  5. But, since quite a few of the warmingista crowd have that kind of goatee, Mann can’t sue – his beard pattern isn’t unique.

    • 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.

  6. I’m so old I remember when it was the old, conservative guys who didn’t have a sense of humour.

      • Q: How many conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?
        A: No idea, ask my manservant.

      • 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.

      • Kozlowski May 15, 2017 at 2:43 pm
        … Your stereotype is about half a century out of date.

        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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  7. 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

    The Epistemology of Tyranny
    Science and scientism are superficially similar but epistemic opposites.
    A true scientist remains doxastically open. That means that she works always on the assumption that her theory is a) false or incomplete and b) will therefore change.
    The daily task of science is to identify the ways in which our current understanding is lacking. In so doing, science’s understanding of the world becomes less false.
    Scientism, in contrast, is doxastically closed. That means that it identifies our best theory but then behaves as if it is a) absolute truth and b) will therefore not change.
    Scientism, unlike science, has no need for data. It is deadly because it always uses the current paradigm to explain away potentially problematic observations. (E.g. the cat’s squeal isn’t telling me it’s in pain; it’s confirming that machines, including cats, have predictable responses to physical stimuli.)
    Orwell’s “unthinking orthodoxy” is “political scientism.” That’s the epistemology of tyranny.

    • 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.

    • 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:

        A true scientist remains doxastically open. That means that she works always on the assumption that her theory is a) false or incomplete and b) will therefore change.

        I particularly liked these following four paragraphs:

        In my earlier article, I wrote about the authoritarianism of some of the “Social Justice Warrior” Left today, who would give moral privilege to groups they identity as victim groups in the name of eliminating privilege; who would eliminate the free speech of people with whom they disagree in the name of giving everyone an equal voice; who equate speech with violence to justify violence against those who speak.
        Bizarre as those paradoxes clearly are, their advocates are not automatically dangerous if they are open to revising their moral or political theory in the light of falsifying data or contradictions in the theory’s application.
        What makes it all dangerous is that it is allied with an a priori belief about competing views and political opponents that eliminate the possibility that any experiences or perspectives could provide data that could challenge the theory.
        If potentially contradictory data can be rejected a priori on account of being explained away as the result of “fascist”, “racist”, “sexist” attitudes, for example, then the theory is inoculated against the human data against which all political theories must be tested.

        And points out that

        It’s not just the preserve of the Left. This kind of epistemic “inoculation” happens all over the political spectrum.

      • 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,

        but I did have to look it up

        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.

  8. A lot of tweeters responding to the Michael Mann tweet as not seeing the humor. Now I can see this as just as funny!

  9. 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.

  10. 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?

    • 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.”

      • 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…

      • 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

  11. 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?

  12. 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

      • 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.)

      • 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

      • “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.

      • 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.. 🙂

      • 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….

      • 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..:)

      • 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… 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… 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… much more you could wish for……!.

  13. 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.

  14. The funny part is that Mann actually does listen to cartoonist. In the resent committee hearing Mann was referring to John Cook and his 97% nonsensus…

  15. Mann approves of adjusting original data, to support his opinion, and calls it Climate Science

  16. By the way, I think M Mann, has got a window of opportunity for a second chance of getting a Congressional immunity…if he could ask politely and fairly, and offering some kind of good intention assurance..
    Even when in this second chance is going a be a lot more expensive than the first time, but still will be better than crossing his fingers that when his own pals will throw him “under the buss” that is going a be temporary, instead of a permanent one and very expensive…
    He really is stuck and sandwiched between a heavy rock and a hard place….

  17. Put it this way; if you find the funny papers THAT big a threat, chances are the cartoonist nailed you 100% perfectly.

  18. How bad would it suck to go through life every day wondering if today will be the day you are exposed once and for all as a complete fraud.

    • tony mcleaod said “When playing the man is all that’s left.”
      Sauce for the goose …

    • So Tony, are you defending his science and do you think his “hockey stick” work was professional or even ethical? Many people think he has consistently and deliberately perverted science in support of an activist agenda and to further his career.
      Additionally, he has shown himself to be of nasty and dishonest temperment. Add it up and you could begin to see why he is intensely disliked. I make no apology. In my opinion the Mann is a fantastic fraud.

    • Adams favors euthansia, so wishes those Pro-Life advocates who oppose doctor-assisted suicide a “long, horrible death”:
      “If you’re a politician who has ever voted against doctor-assisted suicide, or you would vote against it in the future, I hate your fucking guts and I would like you to die a long, horrible death. I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out. I won’t do that, because I fear the consequences. But I’d enjoy it, because you motherfuckers are responsible for torturing my father. Now it’s personal.”

    • Scott Adams:
      “Ask a deeply religious Christian if he’d rather live next to a bearded Muslim that may or may not be plotting a terror attack, or an atheist that may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network in his house. On the scale of prejudice, atheists don’t seem so bad lately.”
      “Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion.”
      Actually, at very high payoffs and low per number cost, there is a point, rarely reached, at which buying a lottery ticket becomes rational. This is especially true of Powerball, with its two-dollar ticket cost. Lucky Lines has a higher likelihood of winning, but again, cost relative to payoff is probably a loser. Megamillions might be the only theoretically supportable choice among major lottery games, with high enough payout and low enough cost. Please don’t rely on my back of the envelope calculations. Results may vary.

      • wow … very bad dates I guess.
        and no on the lottery. Bigger payout … more entrants … and you are more likely to share the winnings … the money odds are not in your favor ever. But if you do buy a ticket your odds of winning are infinitely higher than in you don’t buy a ticket.

      • Lotteries are always a bad deal, especially when factoring in utility theory. The EV is never 100% of the ticket price, and the expected utility is always below 100% of ticket price. It’s a stupid tax.

      • Yes, a tax on the mathematically challenged, but IMO can serve a useful purpose. It’s a voluntary tax. While the odds of winning are less than in a casino, the potential gain is much larger.
        It gives some desperate people hope to keep going during rough patches. No doubt there have been instances of spending dangerously too much money, but IMO it’s less dangerous than habitual casino gambling for addictive personalities.

      • I think of it this way,
        The people who would put a lottery prize to good use are the same people who wouldn’t play the lottery in the first place.

      • @Chimp
        Yes most know that with Casino style, and lottery gambling the earnings on average are always less than 100% but that doesn’t necessarily make it a tax on the dumb. There is an entertainment value as well. I don’t buy lottery tickets every week, but I will buy a handful of tickets when the pot is really high. I get the entertainment value of talking to friends and the wife about what we would do with the winnings, and then wait in angst for the numbers, etc. I know the return on my $10 is only 5 bucks, but I probably got 5 bucks of entertainment value.
        So would you say my entertainment dollars are better spent if I paid $25 for a movie and popcorn to be locked in the dark two hours to see “Paris Can Wait?” or maybe even the latest Transformer nonsense?

      • “So would you say my entertainment dollars are better spent if I paid $25 for a movie and popcorn to be locked in the dark two hours to see “Paris Can Wait?””
        well, think about it –
        do you want to finance future generations of movie producers or would you rather finance future generations of government gambling operations?
        so yeah- it is a stupid tax.

  19. I follow Michael Mann on twitter. I just read his tweets, and through incredible restraint never respond in any way. This way, I am not blocked.
    Anyway, Mann’s twitter feed is that of a Democrat Party activist. Not a scientist. I recommend that WUWT change his title to reflect his activities. Democrat activist Michael Mann.
    By the way, Peter Gleick is pretty much the same.

    • Democrats are no more warmists than Republicans. Just it is harder for them to speak up. Climate change is not a Party political matter and one should try to resist attempts to frame it so. We need people on both sides to be accepted.

      • I follow you on ATTP regularly and enjoy your writing; but on this matter there can be little doubt that in the United States fear of global warming is strongly aligned with the Democratic Party; but that is a side effect of FUD inspired desire for social security in all forms. Libertarian preppers look forward to catastrophe and wish it would get here sooner. Republicans intend to profit from it. That’s a simplification obviously but I hope captures the distinctions well enough as I see them.

      • @Michael
        I didn’t know Elon Musk was a Republican. Seems like the profit is going to friends of Democrats who get government grants and subsidies for their private businesses. Not sure how Republicans are profiting from windmills, and solar, and electric cars except for a few farmers, maybe, who allow the windmills on their land.
        The whole global warming thing is heavily aligned with the Democratic party and Democratic politicians in the US (and a handful of RINOs)

  20. How many Global Warming Scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
    97% of them, even though the lightbulb is working just fine.

  21. How many Global Warming Scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
    97% of them, even though the lightbulb is working just fine.

  22. Why does Mann think this is him in the cartoon (with glasses). Does he have such an enormous ego that he assumes it must be him that Adams was portraying? I guess so…

    • You are right, seemed like a depiction of a generic scientist, that I have seen many times in cartoons. If Mann wants to go around looking like a generic scientist, that is his business.

    • Russell used to visit NRO whenever there was an article on global warming.
      He’s a lot like Mann, he makes blanket statements and then when challenged just declares that he is a college professor and therefor anything he says can’t be challenged.

  23. @ScottAdamsSys “I tell you how to know you won a political debate on the Internet. Learn the tells for cognitive dissonance”
    How to Know You Won a Political Debate on the Internet Posted May 15th, 2017 @ 10:18am in #Internet debating

    You can detect cognitive dissonance by the following tells:
    Absurd Absolute
    Attack the Messenger
    The Psychic Psychiatrist Illusion
    . . .generally speaking, if your debate partner leaves the realm of fact and reason for any of the diversions I mentioned, you just won the debate. Declare victory and bow out.

  24. Interesting that in the edited cartoon, the “scientist” does not answer the question. Apparently Seitz and Mann think this is proper science.

  25. A lot of bad economic models have been hooked to biased climate science in addition to psychology studies. That way more papers get published and so on.

      • For self enrichment, the paper count is more important than grants. They lead to tenure, promotion, bonuses, and world travel.

  26. Let’s pretend that humans could set the worlds temperature by tweeking a trace gas that is essential to life and currently represents less than one half % of 1 % the earths atmosphere .
    How many countries would like it to be a bit warmer and how many countries would like it colder ?
    Who would get to decide ? A committee ? How would self interests be dealt with ?
    Isn’t that the implied narrative of Eco pretenders alarmed that the climate changes and they don’t want the climate to change , or at least if humans can’t control it by limiting population growth and fossil fuel use .
    Mother Nature caused climate change doesn’t seem to be a problem to control .
    How would an earth temperature setting committee offset the influence of natural variables and can they even be accurately measured ? If not, how is the implied goal to control the earths temperature to some agreed temperature possible ?
    Are there any scientific organization peer reviewed papers confirming humans can set the world’s temperature ? If so how ? Most everyone agrees climate changes and humans must have some influence. but were is the proof a warming planet is bad and a cooling planet is better for plants & animals ?
    Why would humans spend $Trillions on a completely uncertain and vain attempt to control the earths temperature to some peoples liking ? On reason …. cold hard cash .

    • It’s good to run these basic thoughts through the meat processor now and again. Instead of setting out from somewhere deep within the climate science theology and immediately bogging down in different data sets and claim/counterclaim arguments a simple question like this is hugely telling. So the usual loons are claiming to be able to dial the Earth’s temperature up and down using their supposed carbon dioxide thermostat knob and do so to an accuracy of better than 0.5 K.
      So then, as you say, before attempting to drive the temperature to some arbitrary level by spending most of the GDP’s of the Western democracies, can we have some sort of international agreement on what the temperature should be please? Doesn’t seem too unreasonable a request does it.
      To me it is a very frightening thing indeed that anyone could be so stupid as to fall for this ranting and raving from the rubber room when a moment’s dispassionate thought reveals it to be utter gibberish.

  27. Just like to point out that some of these AGW promoters are getting rich off of it. So maybe calling them stupid isn’t smart? I have not made a penny off of “denying” it. 🙂

  28. Scott Adams’ ability to observe and understand human behaviour is astonishing, which is what makes him such a great cartoonist. And here’s a question: does Michael Mann actually think the cartoon is about him personally?
    The song “you’re So Vain” springs to mind.
    Scott Adams is a genius. He’s also down to earth. I emailed him many years ago with a little story from my office and he replied personally.

    • A long time ago, there was a display of management stupidity at the place I was working. The next morning, Dilbert had the exact same thing. I emailed Scott to ask if he worked where I did. I was surprised to get a reply – no he didn’t, but apparently there are common forms of stupidity, and they seem to travel in waves through American management.
      We actually had a somewhat lengthy email exchange. I was surprised that he took the time.

  29. Adams had a post that was recently pointed to here on WUWT. It does have some good points.
    Signs that you have won an internet argument according to Adams.
    Absurd absolute.
    A good example of this would be suggesting that the argument was that all science is settled.
    This one depends on whether the analogy is the argument, or just used to explain.
    Attack the messenger.
    “But when you see an attack that seems far angrier than the situation calls for, that’s usually cognitive dissonance.”
    The Psychic Psychiatrist Illusion
    involves imagining you can discern the inner thoughts and motives of strangers. I’m talking about the unspoken thoughts and feelings of strangers, not the things they have actually said. If your debate opponents retreat to magical thinking about their abilities to detect secret motives and mental problems in strangers from a distance, you won.
    This is a handy list I shall keep handy to utilise at appropriate moments.

  30. Here is what I want to know. How hot does it have to get, i.e. how much CO2, to avoid the tipping point to the next ice age. That is what we should be shooting for and ameliorating any heat related problems occurring from the necessary increase.

    • The Cenozoic Ice Age began about 34 million years ago with Antarctic glaciation. CO2 might then have been as high as 1500 ppm. Consensus “climate scientists” however prefer a lower estimate of 750 ppm.
      Since doubling CO2 has little effect on climate after c. 200 ppm, even two doublings from the supposed “pre-industrial” level of ~280 ppm, ie to 1120 ppm, couldn’t forestall the next glacial advance.

      • You missed my point. If CAGW is going to be catastrophic, chances are there will not be another ice age. The warmista’s need to tell where this point actually is and let’s go for it!

      • Jim,
        Their standard response is that man-made warming can’t save us from the next ice age, but rather it’s liable to cause it sooner, as in that idiotic movie.
        Earth suffered an ice age at the Ordovician-Silurian boundary when CO2 was four or five thousand ppm.
        But I see your point. Ask “climate scientists” to state how much CO2 would be required to stop the next glacial advance. Since they suppose that going under 750 ppm in the Oligocene started Antarctic glaciation, then that level might be it, as I tried to suggest.

    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at
    and an earlier accessible blog version at
    Here is the abstract for convenience :
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””

    • Mann seems to have forgotten that he wrote this paper:
      Shindell et al. 2001
      Shindell, D.T., G.A. Schmidt, M.E. Mann, D. Rind, and A. Waple, 2001: Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum. Science, 294, 2149-2152, doi:10.1126/science.1064363.
      We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift towards the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiation decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1-2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.

  32. Trouble is, so many governments have invested so much on the basis that CAGW is real that it’s almost impossible to imagine any of them saying “Sorry, folks, we were wrong”.

    • Questing, they will slowly cease talking about it. Other scary stuff will replace it.
      Subsidies will go away even more slowly. Need to keep those campaign contributions coming as long as possible, don’t you know?

Comments are closed.