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.
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…
Yeah old VV Russell is way out of his depth – he tries to gate-crash all the sites with his attempts to draw attention to himself – kinda pathetic really.
Mann approves of adjusting original data, to support his opinion, and calls it Climate Science
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….
cheers
Put it this way; if you find the funny papers THAT big a threat, chances are the cartoonist nailed you 100% perfectly.
“A remark tends to hurt in proportion to its truth.” ~Will Rogers
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.
When playing the man is all that’s left.
Adams is not playing the man. He is eviscerating the fake “science”.
totally reminding me of Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo
tony mcleaod said “When playing the man is all that’s left.”
Sauce for the goose …
Who said it is all that’s left?
Are you getting more delusional over time?
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.
Dilbert is not Pro-Choice. Is he?
Adams favors euthansia, so wishes those Pro-Life advocates who oppose doctor-assisted suicide a “long, horrible death”:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102964994651/i-hope-my-father-dies-soon
“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.
True, as big jackpots often, but not always, are shared.
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?
Marque,
If I didn’t mention the entertainment value, I meant to do so.
“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.
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)
How many Global Warming Scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
97% of them, even though the lightbulb is working just fine.
How many Global Warming Scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
97% of them, even though the lightbulb is working just fine.
+100
They don’t change it, they just remove it because it’s too hot and go back to being in the dark about things,
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.
VV Russell likes to promote his own site – a pathetic attempt to denigrate WUWT – what a farce .
?w=640
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.
He does not like the cartoon, so he has to adjust it.
Hide the punchline.
@ur momisuglyScottAdamsSys “I tell you how to know you won a political debate on the Internet. Learn the tells for cognitive dissonance” http://bit.ly/2qJpdEM
How to Know You Won a Political Debate on the Internet Posted May 15th, 2017 @ur momisugly 10:18am in #Internet debating
Interesting that in the edited cartoon, the “scientist” does not answer the question. Apparently Seitz and Mann think this is proper science.
Can’t Touch Dis … Haahaha
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.
Say the magic words “climate change” and collect a grant!
For self enrichment, the paper count is more important than grants. They lead to tenure, promotion, bonuses, and world travel.
HA! Scott Adams is a comedic mannipulator! Beautiful…….
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.
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. 🙂
I would love to take Scott Adams fishing one day. He got a lot of good bites.
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.
It’s a keeper.