The Climate of Scott Adams

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

At 73, I’m now in what I call my “late youth”. As a confirmed wanderer, I’ve seen a bit of the world, and I’ve read and studied extensively about our life here on this most lovely planet. As a result of my wide experience, I don’t often come across a book full of brand-new ideas and concepts which strongly affect how I look at the world.

So I have to give big props to my gorgeous ex-fiancee who went to the library and came back with Scott Adams’ book, “Win Bigly“. Scott Adams is the cartoonist who draws “Dilbert”, and it turns out he is much more than that.

It’s an astounding instruction manual for how to look at the world in a totally different way. In it, I was surprised to find a discussion of climate science. As with most new looks at the world, he introduces and defines a new vocabulary and uses some existing vocabulary in new ways. So let me start by quoting directly from those of his definitions relevant to this discussion.

Filter

I use the word “filter” to describe the way people frame their observations of reality. The key idea behind a filter is that it does not necessarily give its user an accurate view of reality. The human brain is not capable of comprehending truth at a deep level.

Second Dimension

The second dimension describes the most common view of reality—the one in which we believe facts and logic are important to our decisions. This view says that humans are reasonable 90 percent of the time, but every now and then we get a bit crazy.

Third Dimension

The third dimension is where trained persuaders operate. This worldview says humans are irrational 90 percent of the time. The only exceptions are when decisions have no emotional content. 

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a condition of mind in which evidence conflicts with a person’s worldview to such a degree that the person spontaneously generates a hallucination to rationalize the incongruity.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is the human tendency to irrationally believe new information supports your existing worldview even when it doesn’t.

Now, that’s a most different way to look at the world. With the “2-D filter”, the way most people look at the world, including me up until I read the book, the assumption is that humans are mostly logical in how we make decisions … but Adams says no, most of the time people are irrational.

And you know what? I think that irrational sucker Adams is 100% right.

For example, I was watching an old Star Trek episode today. Here’s the dialog:

• Captain Kirk: “It’s war. We didn’t want it, but we’ve got it.”

Mr. Spock: “Curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want.”

My first thought on hearing that was … “Looks like humans need a new filter” …

So without further preface, here are Scott Adams’ thoughts about climate science. 

On top of our mass delusions, we also have junk science that is too often masquerading as the real thing. To the extent that people can’t tell the difference, that too is a source of mass delusion.

In the 2-D view of the world, mass delusions are rare and newsworthy But to trained persuaders in the third dimension, mass delusions are the norm. They are everywhere, and they influence every person. This difference in training and experience can explain why people disagree on some of the big issues of the day.

For example, consider the case of global warming. People from the 2-D world assume mass delusions are rare, and they apply that assumption to every topic. So when they notice that most scientists are on the same side, that observation is persuasive to them. A reasonable person wants to be on the same side with the smartest people who understand the topic. That makes sense, right?

But people who live in the 3·D world, where persuasion rules, can often have a different view of climate change because we see mass delusions (even among experts) as normal and routine. My starting bias for this topic is that the scientists could easily be wrong about the horrors of climate change, even in the context of repeated experiments and peer review. Whenever you see a situation with complicated prediction models, you also have lots of room for bias to masquerade as reason. Just tweak the assumptions and you can get any outcome you want.

Now add to that situation the fact that scientists who oppose the climate change consensus have a high degree of career and reputation risk. That’s the perfect setup for a mass delusion. You only need these two conditions:

• Complicated prediction models with lots of assumptions

• Financial and psychological pressure to agree with the consensus

In the 2·0 world, the scientific method and peer review squeeze out the bias over time. But in the 3-D world, the scientific method can’t detect bias when nearly everyone including the peer reviewers shares the same mass delusion.

I’m not a scientist, and I have no way to validate the accuracy of the climate model predictions. But if the majority of experts on this topic turn out to be having a mass hallucination, I would consider that an ordinary situation. In my reality, this would be routine, if not expected, whenever there are complicated prediction models involved. That’s because I see the world as bristling with mass delusions. I don’t see mass delusions as rare.

When nonscientists take sides with climate scientists, they often think they are being supportive of science. The reality is that the nonscientists are not involved in science, or anything like it. They are taking the word of scientists. In the 2-D world, that makes perfect sense, because it seems as if thousands of experts can’t be wrong, But in the 3·D world, I accept that the experts could be right, and perhaps they are, but it would be normal and natural in my experience if the vast majority of climate scientists were experiencing a shared hallucination.

To be clear, l am not saying the majority of scientists are wrong about climate science. I’m making the narrow point that it would be normal and natural for that group of people to be experiencing a mass hallucination that is consistent with their financial and psychological incentives. The scientific method and the peer-review process wouldn’t necessarily catch a mass delusion during any specific window of time. With science, you never know if you are halfway to the truth or already there. Sometimes it looks the same.

Climate science is a polarizing topic (ironically). So let me just generalize the point to say that compared with the average citizen, trained persuaders are less impressed by experts.

To put it another way, if an ordinary idiot doubts a scientific truth, the most likely explanation for that situation is that the idiot is wrong. But if a trained persuader calls BS on a scientific truth, pay attention.

Do you remember when citizen Trump once tweeted that climate change was a hoax for the benefit of China? It sounded crazy to most of the world. Then we learned that the centerpiece of politics around climate change—the Paris climate accord—was hugely expensive for the United States and almost entirely useless for lowering temperatures. (Experts agree on both points now.) The accord was a good deal for China, in the sense that it would impede its biggest business rival, the United States, while costing China nothing for years. You could say Trump was wrong to call climate change a hoax. But in the context ofT rump’s normal hyperbole, it wasn’t as wrong as the public’s mass delusion believed it to be at the time.

I’ll concede that citizen Trump did not understand the science of climate change. That’s true of most of us. But he still detected a fraud from a distance.

It wasn’t luck.

Zowie!

I’ll leave it there … read the book. It will make the world a whole lot more understandable.


Meanwhile, it’s been hot and dry here on our Northern California hillside. A new fire has broken out northeast of us, but it’s not likely to move this way. And no, it’s not from “climate change” …

And sadly, the idiots running Sonoma county are still stuck in COVIDementia. They are requiring masks at the beach, for heaven’s sake … and yes, that does verify Adams’ “3-D filter”, wherein most of the people act irrationally most of the time and mass hallucination and mass hysteria are common, not rare. 

So me, I just be chillin’. I go to the beach. I go to town. They’re letting people cut hair now … but only outdoors. I don’t wear a mask unless I’m required to, and never outdoors. And in particular never at the beach. But I’ll have to wear one for my haircut today, county regs.

My best wishes to all, stay well in this “fiery but mostly peaceful” world, 

w.

My Usual Request: When you comment please quote the EXACT WORDS that you are discussing. That way we can all be clear on the subject of your comment.

190 thoughts on “The Climate of Scott Adams

  1. This is how people in the advertising industry understand humans and our decision-making “processes.” We all connect the dots irrationally because we don’t have enough dots, we believe we have many more dots than we do, and most of the dots we do have are wrong, but we don’t know it.

      • No evidence that Lenin ever used that term. Probably invented by an american journalist. However, there’s no need to be insulting “damp”. You probably did not even understand the gist of his comment anyway.

        BTW I love the burnt out “No Logging” sign, sums it up a treat.

          • and tonight i read our state Victoria is halting the urgently neded pre fire season burnoffs
            why?
            covid risk!!
            yup a number of firefighters cant manage to stay safe re covid risk out in numerous vehicles uniforms inc masks while burning off rubbish undergrowth it seems

            so are we NOT going to fight the massive fires we might get if conditions prevail this year too?
            after theyve shot all the Brumbies that were at least grazing some areas of high native critter risk/scarcity/endangerment…
            you really cant make this shit up!

        • I just want to know how the sign survived when nothing else did.

          Is that an example of confirmation bias or is that bear and his sign working in 3D?

      • Carbon bigfoot,
        Thanks for the irrational response to my endorsement of Adams’ view that most people live irrational lives most of the time. Congratulations?

        Contrary to our self-narrative, most people come to a “conclusion” first, then seek information to shore up their opinion. I believe Jonathan Haidt talks about this in “Righteous Mind.”

        • Haidt does indeed discuss this topic extensively. The ‘gut feeling’ or initial response is the elephant. The elephant is the primary driver of 90% of folks behavior. The logical mind is the ‘rider”. The rider cannot truly control the elephant. He is along for the ride. When the elephant has a reaction to a situation, the rider seeks out information to justify the reaction. The rider is the elephant’s press secretary.

    • The delusion is that if we have enough data and enough processing power we can make rational decisions.

      The world, and especially human affairs, are chaotic and can’t be predicted. It’s another manifestation of the butterfly effect.

      What to do? IMHO, observation is much more important than logic. Logic invites us to build castles in the sky or MBA BS case studies. By paying attention and seeing things as they are we can respond to the glaringly obvious. Most people can’t do that.

  2. Take care of that ex-fiancee. A good one is the highest reward a man can ask for. (And a bad one is just a temporary event lasting years).

    Dilbert (i.e. Scott Adams) is one of my heroes. He dang near sent me to an early death several times with his cartoons – I laughed until I couldn’t breath. Dogbert just RULES.

  3. The Smokey cartoon reminded me of what I think must be a sort of 3D truth: There’s only two ways wood leaves the forest – either as lumber, or as smoke…

    • Yes. So much less interesting when he jabbers on than when he used to write. I love reading. I hate talking head video. He’s lost a lot of readers.

      • But he’s gained a lot of watchers?
        I understand his move to video – it takes much less time to record a video than write (and proofread) an article. I too miss the articles, but I seldom miss a video.

        • I used to read all his articles, and I’d love to listen to his videos, but the information transfer rate is so slow. I gave up 🙁

  4. Excellent book. I read it when it was first released. Too often, Climate Alarmists kick butt on Climate Skeptics when it comes to communications tactics … Lots to be learned from Mr. Adams if they want to do better.

    • Thanks, Gord. One of my insights from this book was that climate skeptics are selling facts, and the mainstream is selling fear … and Scott says fear will win that battle.

      Not sure how to fight that, but it is clearly a big issue in this dispute.

      w.

      • I’ve given up arguing with people about it. I just tell them to look at the underlying data, not the analysis, not the commentary, not the media. Not one of them ever had.

        I tell them to read the IPCC reports. Not the summary, written by politicians, not the media. Then check the comments too. Not one of them ever had.

        When you find these two itens, you find that there is nothing terrible happening, and the IPCC themselves state that any problems caused by any predicted warming will be wholly mitigated by changes in technology and society.

        They never, ever, believe this. They never, ever, take my advice and look for these things. They believe the Fearmongering, without facts.

        • ZZW: “ I’ve given up arguing with people about it. I just tell them to look at the underlying data, not the analysis, not the commentary, not the media. Not one of them ever had.“

          The solution is to sell them to fear that whatever they are told by “experts or authorities” will be sure to mislead and lie to them!

          Tell them that they all have economic self interest in gaining political support, no less than a mobster who “sells” businesses insurance against loss and early death. Global Warming is a multi-trillion dollar racket for bureaucrats and “experts” funded by bureaucrats.

          If you’re happy to be a bureaucrat’s slave, then do nothing. If you would be free, then look at the best data (satellites, weather balloons).
          See how best measured warming just happens to coincide with natural El Niño events?

          See? Buy the insurance against man-made global warming! Shame if something
          happens to the earth because you like to drive and heat your home, now — wouldn’t it?

          Keep on making AGW “science” the largest item in Federal science spending (save Medicine). What a shame if we fry to death from loving our autos and homes and to travel, right? Because a measured 1C degree of warming per century is the same as moving 80 miles South! It’s that dangerous! To everyone!

          (Yes, use sarcasm to undercut their naive certainty of the “expert” narratives that contradict obvious Truths.)

      • –One of my insights from this book was that climate skeptics are selling facts, and the mainstream is selling fear … and Scott says fear will win that battle.

        Not sure how to fight that, but it is clearly a big issue in this dispute.–

        Well, a lot people fear a lot things. Probably few fear global climate as much as other things. I suppose what Scott means is, that in terms getting someone attention, fear wins.
        As far as “climate skeptics are selling facts” I am not seeing it.
        I don’t think climate skeptics even know global warming looks like- though alarmists have proven they have zero clues.
        Is there anyone sane that wants 1 C cooling in global temperature.
        It seems not long ago, people tended agree, such a thing would be a very bad thing.
        What average air temperature would people want to live in?
        California average temperature is about 15 C, and that seems a selling point of California. A lot people live in California, but no where near most of people in US- which has average temperature of about 12 C. How is bad that, say Oregon {about 9 C] was closer to California’s average temperature?
        More crazy is Europe with average temperature of 9 C. Is a thing for Italians to go to Germany in summer. Sure you might want go to Germany in winter, and so if going there, then the summer might be better time- but is it done to escape the warmer Italy?
        Of course the other factor is Urban Heat Island Effect. If afraid of warming, UHI effect is far more significant.
        But I guess since they might have air conditioning, they could be worried about Nature rather than their own comfort. I don’t think UHI effect keep Nature out the urban areas.
        The main thing, of course is we in an Ice Age.
        Does anyone know what effect being in Ice Age has upon the world.
        What better for “nature” an Ice Age or a more normal Earth climate.
        Sure, it’s bit impractical to ponder this, as there is zero chance of us leaving this Ice Age at any time within centuries. But then again there not much harm in dreaming about it.

        • People in fear require assurance – that they can be safe. They need to know their fears are un-grounded and not dismissed with actuarial tables (data). Most times they need to arrive at this place of safety by their own efforts (or what they think were their own efforts). Sceptics can help with this by keeping them away from the source of their fear: bad news reporting, most often.

          • I would say people in fear, need to do something.
            I don’t know if I could assure, anyone about climate. And certainly not weather, which people confuse with global climate.
            It seems to me, that an Ice Age would have more severe weather, and with recent warming, this seems confirmed.
            The problem global climate or weather lack of enough knowledge to have a lot certainty. It sort of like mental health- very little is known. But that case with many things.
            At least with mental health, one might say your doctors seem competent [or look better ones]. There is not much competence in the field of global climate- probably mainly because it’s not very important.
            Global climate is long term thing. The idea it’s going to change within decades, is simply too stupid to talk about.

      • Willis, yes they have always been selling fear. The shameless shift in focus from projections of century scale warming (very modest in both scale and pace) to “more killer storms” right now, is just dishonest selling fear. Weather related deaths are at historic lows, not rising.

        I have thought about the best ways to react ti the fear mongering. I think the most useful reaction is loud laughter, followed by refusing to engage anyone trying to promote irrational fear.

      • A perfect example of fear sold is the prevalence of people wearing masks outdoors. We live adjacent to an urban bicycle / walking path and witness countless young people passing wearing the mask. I think to myself, “morons!”, but I am sure that they are of at least average intelligence but unequipped to think for themselves and are persuaded by the loudest voices which are the media.

      • Fear will sell the most but cold hard reality wins in the end. That’s why sometimes people say “Mother Nature is a b**ch.” The sun rises every morning; but the sun will also run out of fuel and destroy the solar system at some point in the future. There are immutable realities that no matter how hard we cheer, cry, protest, or manipulate, we cannot change.

        I think the cold hard realities of climate change will slap many of us in the face. I also think it will have a much greater effect on the emotion-driven wrist-wringing doomsday leftists. We can already see that in play in places like California.

      • Willis;

        Not sure how to fight that, but it is clearly a big issue in this dispute.

        Well, if we have to get down in the mud with the pig, we need to find a bigger fear to brandish. Appealing to people’s self interest, I thing the best thing to do is to focus on the immediate economic harm folks will suffer under Green programs. Really take apart, in detail, the wonky assumptions “green” economists keep making regarding costs and benefits, take down the shibboleth of “social cost of carbon”, etc. Fight fire with fire.

      • When a person has a strong belief, no amount of facts will change their mind. The person looks at the facts and asks themselves, “must I believe this?”. The answer is almost always NO. The person will look for the smallest flaw to invalidate the facts presented. Information that conflicts with their belief system is rejected.

    • Thank you for this Willis – Dilbert rings true. For example:

      Third Dimension
      “The third dimension is where trained persuaders operate. This worldview says humans are irrational 90 percent of the time.”
      – Scott Adams

      I just posted this a few days ago –same thought, but Adams said it better:
      “Scientific facts don’t matter to the new left – they prefer to swim submerged in their own BS, believing every lie fabricated by CNN and fellow-travelers.”
      https://www.newser.com/story/comments/295868/fauci-issues-warning-to-7-states.html#comment-5061074999

      My good friend Dr. Dave, a remarkably talented specialist physician, often rants about the enormously irrational behaviour of humanity, collectively and individually. He helped me make the correct call on the phony Covid-19 lockdown, and also understands that popular climate and green energy mantras are false and fraudulent. His problem is that he is highly intelligent and rational, and somehow expects others to be like him.

      I have frequently explained to him that he is in the top 1% of human intelligence and competence, and issues that are obvious to him are a mystery to people of average and sub-average intelligence and education. This observation rarely placates him for long, because he cannot believe that people can be so incredibly stupid. I then fall back on the question: “Dave, if you had the choice, would you rather be smart like you are, with all your frustrations, or stupid, so you’d be happy?

      I then defuse the issue with a quick segue into the Dunning Kruger Effect, in layman’s terms: “Stupid people are too stupid to know they are stupid.” 🙂

      In this increasingly imbecilic world, perhaps being highly intelligent like Dr. Dave is a curse – it’s not easy being happy when you are surrounded by incredible falsehoods and breathtaking stupidity.

    • THE 1% BLUNDER: HOW A SIMPLE BUT FATAL MATH MISTAKE BY US COVID-19 EXPERTS CAUSED THE WORLD TO PANIC AND ORDER LOCKDOWNS
      By Malcolm Kendrick, doctor and author
      6 Sep, 2020
      https://www.rt.com/op-ed/500000-covid19-math-mistake-panic/

      We locked down in fear. We killed tens of thousands unnecessarily, in fear. We crippled the economy, and left millions in fear of their livelihoods. We have trapped abused women and children at home with their abusers. We have wiped out scores of companies, and crushed entire industries.

      We stripped out the NHS, and left millions in prolonged pain and suffering, on ever lengthening waiting lists, which have doubled. There have also been tens of thousands of delayed cancer diagnoses – the effects of which are yet to be seen, but the Lancet has estimated at least sixty thousand years of life will be lost.

      Lockdown can be seen as a complete and utter disaster. And it was all based on a nonsense, a claim that Covid was going to kill one percent. A claim that can now be seen to be utterly and completely wrong. Sweden, which did not lock down, has had a death rate of 0.0058 percent.

      It takes a very big person to admit they have made a horrible, terrible mistake. But a horrible, terrible mistake has been made. Let’s end this ridiculous nonsense now. And vow never to let such monumental stupidity happen ever again.

      • Please keep in mind that the claim the CoV-19 would kill one percent of the UK’s population came from projection models at Imperial College London. If you look at their track record of projections about Ebola, H1N1, or any other recent flu’s etc., you will find that they were also grossly over-estimated. Does this remind anyone of other projection models that are consistently running hot? It is time to subject all of these models to Verification and Validation before basing public policy on their results. Sadly, our political class is incapable of understanding this.

  5. Can’t miss my daily “Coffee with Scott Adams” fix, and the blog, and the Dilbert cartoon. In addition to the passage you cite, in the videos he’s also campaigned for nuclear energy, and lately given daily updates from his perspective of California blackouts and wildfires. I recommend his other work.

  6. There once was a bridge across the North Umpqua River here in Oregon. It was built and owned by a logging company in a time, far, far away. The bridge washed out during the big December, 1962 flood. About 10 years ago, the Forest Service aquired rights to the bridge foundations and access to it. Then they built a new bridge across the river. They built it as a walking bridge, on the inside of the bridge structure, too narrow and too weak to get a vehicle across. Now, the entire mountain on the “off” side of the new bridge is a bunch of dead, black sticks. Yep, it burned and there was no way to access the fire from the ground. Vandals run the world.

    • Reply to Renaldo, your statement of “vandals run the world” needs to be kicked a few notches.
      Sadly, the correct word/s, by definition, would be “ruffians“ / “murderers.”

      • As a proud high school drop out and as a person who knows the history of THE Vandals, I stand by my statement. If we were younger (and different) I would be proud if you had my child. Your brain works. Amazing. (That was humor) maybe.

        • Renaldo,
          Maybe the confusion came from your use of the word “Vandals” as that has several meanings for many people! If you had said looters and pillagers, like the Vandals, Huns, Visigoths or Mongols there might have been less misunderstanding. Incidentally, the Vandals, coming from the area that is now Poland, probably had a much better idea of how to manage forests than your Forest Service in Oregon! They might be better compared to the Mongol Horde that burned and slaughtered indiscriminately until death of their leaders and climate change turned them back from conquering Europe!

          • That darned old Climate Change. As for me, I pray that much of North America will be covered by mile (2 kilometer for my European firends) deep ice fields as it was about 20,000 years ago. Clearly, we would be much better off if we didn’t disrupt nature. Whatever that is. The corn crop in Iowa would be much better than it is today. As a pretty old guy,
            I remember living on the farm in the Ozarks, farming with horses, crapping in a hole in the ground, no AC, one fan, a 15 amp service for the whole place, a wood stove and a cistern from which we pumped water with our single pitcher pump in the kitchen. Screw that. Guarantee the little wimps in college today would relish that life. (sarcasm)

        • History has not treated the Vandals well. Starting in Southern Scandinavia, crossing the Rhine, travelling through Gaul and Iberia, creating a kingdom in North Africa and eventually sacking Rome, WITHOUT burning it to the ground or killing all the inhabitants. As they migrated they took their wealth, and other people’s with them. Probably where their reputation for building wrecking comes from. Compared with others such as the Golden Horde who destroyed people, places and things they were fairly ordinary barbarians

          • I walk my puppy daily in a green space in Lexington MA with a sign in brown with white letter s stating “No Vandalism Police take notice” at the entrance. My wife and I imagine that the back side of that sign, to be read upon departing, should read “Resume Vandalism”.

    • Heinlein would have seen through this BS before it even got started. My favorite, from the notebooks of Lazarus Long:

      Political tags–such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth–are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

        • I was looking through a collection of Heinlein’s books earlier today. I’ve read them all, but it was so long ago that I’m thinking about reading them again.

          I think Heinlein’s “Have Spacesuit–Will Travel, was about the second science fiction book I ever read, when I was about 11 years old. The first one I ever read was titled, “The Wonderful Planet” but I can’t remember the author. That one little book fired my imagination like you wouldn’t believe. I couldn’t put it down until I was finished with it, and then I immediately started reading it again from the beginning..

          • I did find one Heinlein book I had not read. It was titled, “Suchschein-werfer”. I downloaded it and realized it was written in German.

  7. Willis —
    I’m glad you found Scott Adams’ work. You and he are fellow travelers in the sense that each is an iconoclast who seeks the truth using the methods that each knows — you with your wonderful analyses of data and he with his knowledge of psychology and persuasion. Together you two could change the world!

    JRB

  8. Scott Adams says:
    That’s because I see the world as bristling with mass delusions. I don’t see mass delusions as rare.

    In other words, we are being lied to. We are being bombarded daily with fake news, which by the way, used to be called Bullshit.

    • The No Agenda podcast has been saying this for over 10 years. It has been quite a different perspective listening to them. The have no advertising.

      Adam Curry of MTV fame has a unique inside look at how television is run and Jon Dvorak has a print media background.

    • Excrement is food with the nutrition removed. BS is information with the facts removed.

      The difference between fake news and lying is belief. If you believe what you are saying it is not a lie. Unless talking to the FBI.

    • “We are being bombarded daily with fake news”

      I think this is the big difference between the modern day and past eras.

      The ability to propagandize and brainwashed the populace is much greater today than yesterday, and the brainwashing is orchestrated by those on the Left in an effort to gain political power for themselves. Mass delusions are much more doable today as a consequence.

      The News Media became the voice of authority for society. Then they started lying and distorting the truth for political purposes. Their position as the voice of authority serves their propaganda and brainwashing well.

      Trump has gone a long way towards exposing the Leftwing Media for the liars they are, but the Media still has too much influence on too many people. It’s dangerous when your voice of authority is lying to you. And that’s where we find ourselves now with the Leftwing Media.

  9. There’s always excellent comments by many posters on this site, but much of the technical discussion while readily countering the scientific misinformation doesn’t follow the money and name names, who exactly are the vested interests behind much of the green scam? I don’t recall once hearing the name Aloys Wobben mentioned here, he’s the billionaire German founder and owner of Enercon, a big league German wind turbine outfit. Let’s throw another important name out, Goldwind, AKA Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co. Limited, headquartered in Beijing, listed on the Shenzhen and Hong Kong stock exchanges. Who might they be? Only the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer. As you might guess, nothing goes down in Beijing without the express approval of Xi Jinping and the Chicom senior politburo. Kickbacks? Back scratching? Paris accords? Funding for anti-coal green pressure groups? Captive media? Constant pushing of the renewables/global warming scam night and day? You betcha.

    It also suits Big Gas very nicely… Exxon, Shell, BP, Qatar, Russia… close down coal, close down nukes, buy our gas… big LNG projects have capex in the tens of billions, which these guys need to recoup. They are also funding the CO2 demonisation drive in a big way.

    This is who we are up against. And our dumb politicians try to appease the green vote.

    • As always, follow the money. No better advice for understanding the real motivations of our elites.

      China is a major manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels. I lived in Chengdu, Beijing, and Shanghai for five years, and travelled widely during that time. I can’t recall ever seeing a single wind turbine or solar panel. There are, however, many solar water-heaters on small dwellings, to supply domestic hot water.

      Many Politburo members have Engineering training, and know full well that Renewable (Unreliable) Energy is a farce. Of course, they are only too happy to sell it to idiotic Western countries.

      • Here in Australia every few months I would drive along a particular rural road and notice a gravel lot filled with dozens of pickup trucks about 20 miles from the closest town. What’s going on there, I wondered. Then one day a few wind turbines sprouted. Turns out all these guys were working on a 104 turbine wind project run by Goldwind Australia, a fully owned subsidiary of the Chinese parent Goldwind. The state government mandates set percentages of renewable electricity to be bought by utilities. Land owners of course like the payments from the wind farms. Consumers pay more for their power. It’s now A$0.38 a kWh in Victoria from Energy Australia. Energy Australia itself meanwhile is owned by Hong Kong conglomerate CLP Group. China Light & Power Co.

  10. Two “yuge” takeaways from your excerpt:

    “Just tweak the assumptions and you can get any outcome you want”

    “When nonscientists take sides with climate scientists, they often think they are being supportive of science. The reality is that the nonscientists are not involved in science, or anything like it. They are taking the word of scientists”

    There are oft repeated phrases uttered by those from many of the “nonscientists” group, to anyone that dares to question claims made by scientists:

    “Don’t you believe in ‘science’??”

    “You’re a ‘science’ d*ni*r!”

  11. Scott Adams seems to live in a world where truth doesn’t rule; persuasion does. I find that extraordinarily odd, and honestly, a bit despicable.

    • icisil September 8, 2020 at 7:05 pm

      Scott Adams seems to live in a world where truth doesn’t rule; persuasion does. I find that extraordinarily odd, and honestly, a bit despicable.

      Then you would be mistaken … facts can’t be “despicable”, they’re just facts. And I think Scott is being factual when he says that people act irrationally most of the time.

      And when someone is acting irrationally, as most of us are most of the time, truth doesn’t make a lot of difference … and that, too, is simply a fact.

      Now, you’re free to ignore that and live in your 2-D world where everyone is rational and logical most of the time, and only occasionally is nuts.

      But in my experience, that is not a valuable filter. Why not? Because it doesn’t let you predict things.

      Best regards, and read the book. As the inventor of some of the ideas, he explains them better than I can.

      w.

      • In the postmodern world of academia, everyone is irrational all of the time, everyone speaks a language that is utterly foreign to everyone else, and no communication is possible with anyone at any time.

        Oh, and every human-human interaction is merely a struggle over power.

        What dimensionality is that, if not 0-D?

        Maybe D-I (dimension I), where I = idiot.

        Academic D-Is used to be confined to the Humanities. Now they infest the entire academic corpus — or perhaps entire academic corpse is more accurate.

      • Willis,
        While Scott Adams is extraordinarily intelligent and has some incredibly humorous outlooks on many subjects you might want to take a couple of his own statements into account.
        First, he regularly says he is to the left of Bernie socially. While I take that with a grain of salt, I don’t think of a Communist like Bernie is a serious thinker or leader, just a true believer!
        Second, Scott admits to being a regular marijuana user. While I don’t think that is a crime, I have from my own experience seen how, all too often, people who are stoned get into what I call “stinkin’ thinkin’!” Some of his podcasts are unbearable for me because he goes off on ideas or rants that seem completely wacky. Neither Tony Heller nor Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai were able to convince him that the scientific evidence does not support the CAGW alarmism we see everywhere around us in the media; yet it seems to me that a second year college geology student should be able to get that quite easily! At least he is a strong proponent of nuclear power!
        As a builder, what would you think of someone who has an indoor tennis court, in California! I used to have a neighbor who had an indoor swimming pool and I would dream of having a 105 mm howitzer to wipe that monstrosity off the face of the Earth!
        Enjoy your book and enjoy the pocasts, too, if you like; I know I usually do. I would just recommend keeping the salt handy, too!

        • Thanks, Abolition. I don’t take what Scott says as gospel. My rule of thumb I got from my grandmother, the Captain’s Daughter, who used to tell us kids:

          You can believe half of what you read, a quarter of what you hear … and an eighth of what you say.

          A wiser, scarier, or more powerful woman I’ve never met.

          w.

          • Willis, I’m laughing my head off and writing down that wonderful wisdom of The Captain’s Daughter on the subject of truth.

            A thought on S. Adams’s filters: maybe since so much is non deterministic chaos, we have evolved to be massively delusional to harmonize with it. He does mention that it is incentivized so people earn a living and even fame and fortune in mass delusions.

        • Abolition Man writes:

          “Neither Tony Heller nor Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai were able to convince him that the scientific evidence does not support the CAGW alarmism we see everywhere around us in the media; ”

          I believe you have to consider Scott Adams knows where/how his bread gets buttered… He was appearing to be convinced by Tony Heller for a short time, but then did an about face and intimates he is towards the climate alarmism side…

          He knows if he comes out against the Climate Cult, he will be effectively “canceled” – so his income stream dries up, and/or his ability to “influence” also gets seriously hampered.

          He is not immune to the peer pressure or sense of self preservation that pervades the common mass delusions he speaks of…

        • I sensed that in his interactions with Tony and the others. His rejection of some things they were saying almost seemed disingenuous, until I realized he is ruled by a postmodern relativism that does not allow him to acknowledge the existence of truth.

        • I’ve read Scott Adams enough to know that he sometimes takes an interest in what’s called the Simulation Hypothesis. You know, we’re living a simulated scenario, maybe something like the Matrix, or might be ‘overdrawn at the memory bank’, something like that. Maybe if enough people would switch from Gaia worship to Simulation philosophy, that would be an improvement, not so much bad environmental planning then?

        • I can’t understand how a person who has built a career out of skewering bureaucracies can be a big supporter of the biggest bureaucracy of all, socialism.

      • I didn’t say that facts are despicable; I meant character that places more value in persuasion than truth is despicable.

        And I do disagree that people act irrationally most of the time. We all act in our own self interest all of the time, and we all have blind spots that cause us to act irrationally about some things sometimes, or even most or all of the time. But to say that we act irrationally all, or most, of the time is ridiculous hyperbole.

        I think Scott Adams’ worldview reflects the little cartoon world he carved out for himself to survive the crazy banking world he came from. His worldviews are about like his cartoons: mildly interesting, a little perverse, sometimes funny, but not something I would pay attention to unless bored. So I can’t imagine reading his book.

        Concerning prediction, to be able to predict human nature, you have to understand it, and you’ll never understand it by placing people in little boxes (2-D, 3-D, etc) that supposedly define everything about everyone. That’s for people who like to appear like teachers who milk the dumb masses at seminars and sell them books. You have to understand yourself to understand human nature; then you will know how to judge others and predict what they will do.

        • icisil September 9, 2020 at 5:34 am

          Concerning prediction, to be able to predict human nature, you have to understand it, and you’ll never understand it by placing people in little boxes (2-D, 3-D, etc) that supposedly define everything about everyone. That’s for people who like to appear like teachers who milk the dumb masses at seminars and sell them books. You have to understand yourself to understand human nature; then you will know how to judge others and predict what they will do.

          And yet Scott Adams predicted Trump’s win when every other pundit said he didn’t have a chance … sorry, amigo, but until YOU can predict better than Scott, that’s just sour grapes.

          And of course you don’t want to read his book … that’s a good idea, I support that—you should definitely protect yourself from the inevitable cognitive dissonance that would undoubtedly ensue.

          As to your claim that people don’t act irrationally most of the time … I can only conclude that you live on another planet. On my planet that’s absolutely true—on my planet, for example, we have BLM rioters burning down their own communities, destroying minority businesses, and beating people up. And this was all created, organized, supported, and paid for by Democrats.

          Of course, this has greatly damaged the credibility of both BurnLootMurder and the Democrats, further divided the races instead of uniting them, turning black people against them, and may have cost the Demagogues the election … as anyone could have predicted unless they were totally irrational.

          … oh, wait …

          w.

      • Such a polite response!! I HATE ad hominem comments, so it’s such a refreshing change to read your measured responses. BTW, I’m a YUGE fan of yours! Thanks for all the great essays,

    • I think Scott is trying to tell people that facts do not rule, some people just think they do.

      I think he’s right. There is no other explanation for what goes on, and how differently each person perceives it.

      • Willis, you and Scott Adams would both enjoy reading:

        A Beginner’s Guide to Mathematical Logic, (2014)
        A Beginner’s Further Guide to Mathematical Logic, (2016)

        Both by Raymond Smullyan (1919-2017)

      • If facts don’t rule then it’s just a relativistic world where everyone makes up their own reality. In fact, facts do rule. It’s just that some people can’t handle the truth and create all these little cartoon fantasies where they can escape to and feel in control.

        • It’s not that facts don’t matter, of course they do. The point Adams is making is that most people are either unwilling or unable to deal in facts because they are driven by emotion. He’s not saying that it’s a good thing but reality.

          • From watching the interactions regarding climate on twitter, Adams is unwilling/unable to deal in facts. He doesn’t regard what is most truthful, but what is most persuasive, i.e., the realm of illusion and deceit.

    • There are facts:
      – The Earth has warmed since 1850.
      – CO2 has risen from 280ppm in 1870 to about 414 ppm today.

      Then there are interpretations and models based on assumptions:
      And then there is everything in between the claim of causation. A claimed causation that says it is man’s CO2 release from fossil fuels that has been the overwhelming reason for that temperature rise.

      All “useful” pseudoscience takes a few facts and then wraps them is layer upon layers of claims and assumptions for claiming causation until the fakers no longer realize what they are peddling is junk, because they discarded that most essential scientific tool, testing of alternative explanations. And most don’t care as long as that next research grant comes through.

      • I don’t see the “Climate Change” issue in Scientific Terms, I see it Political Terms. The Political World wants to use Science to say that Climate Change is a Problem that needs to be solved. To do this, they offer all kinds of scientific evidence that Climate Change exists.

        Proving that Climate Change exists, however, is not the same as proving it’s a Problem. That’s like saying Chocolate is problem because Chocolate exists. It’s a Logical Fallacy.

        Like it or not, in the end, all Problems are Subjective Things.

        Those pushing the Political Agenda know this, so they highlight and acknowledge only those scientific studies which show the negative effects of warming and disregard those that show the positive effects.

        The fact is, there are pros and cons to any type of Climate.

        For some reason, we human beings like to dwell on the negative aspects of our existence; the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I bet, even here at WUWT, that it would be much easier for the population of commenters to rattle off a list of warming negatives than it would be to rattle off a list of warming positives. It’s what we do.

        (It’s not like the longer list would win because some things are more beneficial and less detrimental than others.) Increased Cultivatable Land, for example, might outweigh something like diminished Polar Ice Caps.

        I wish I could compile a comprehensive list of warming positives that I could pull out any time I was I was involved in a heated “political” discussion about Climate Change, but alas, I’m too distracted by other interests.

        Such things will never end the argument, though. If I point out something that I consider a benefit, my opponent will eventually try to disprove me with some scientific study that indicates the opposite.

        When all is said and done, however, just take a step back from all the mind-numbing dialectical intercourse and actually take a good look at the Solution the Left is proposing for Climate Change; the Green New Deal, the Paris Climate Accord, etc.

        It becomes readily apparent that we’re all caught up in a Mind Game that’s merely using the issue to further a Purely Political Agenda which has nothing to with the Environment at all. It’s about the acquisition of Political Power and a quest for World Domination.

      • “– The Earth has warmed since 1850.”

        We don’t know that. Some places, according to thermometers and thermisters at certain locations, have cooled, some have warmed, some have remained relatively static. So, no, I don’t accept that fact.

      • Depends on how you define world. Human society is indeed not ruled by truth, but by persuasion. The natural world, though, is ruled by truth expressed in laws. The former will eventually pass away because it violates the rule of law, as in “I fought the law and the law won”.

    • The world Scott Adams speaks of is very familiar to anyone who(like him) ever worked for a large corporation. We used to say that common sense was not permitted inside the gate.

      • I’ve worked for very large and very small corps.

        I worked for Sprint for about 10 years, tech support for their data networks.

        They would sometimes have “mandatory” meetings and seminars. The most useless one I remember was “7 habits of highly effective people”. The only thing I learned was that BS reigns supreme.

  12. When this CAGW scare narrative is done and over with, I suggest here that it will a fascinating subject of study for psychologists and sociologists. How and why did this happen? What concepts talked about in this post (filtering, second and third dimension, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias) played a role in making it possible?

    I suggest that those who have been most susceptible to this scare narrative are the ones who tend to look at humanity through a filter of misanthropy. The CAGW narrative provides confirmation bias for misanthropic thinking. It becomes easy to get into the heads of the misanthropic thinkers and manipulate them psychologically and emotionally to embrace the idea of CAGW induced by human CO2 emissions. When a strong emotional response is triggered, a faithful believer is created.

    For others, being ignorant of science and how the scientific method and scientific discourse work certainly play a role as well in creating a believer. The ignorance represents an absence of a road block to believing. Scientists are the infallible and unquestionable authority figures, so why should we question them? Ignorance of science makes it possible to use the 97% consensus claim as a substitute for proof, and never mind science’s history of getting things wrong initially (the status of Pluto, stomach ulcer causes, etc.).

    Referring to the CAGW narrative as a cult pretty much explains it all in a nutshell.

    • Well, I’ve been referring to it as Climate Scientology for a while. It’s a made up story, with no way to disprove it, and it’s designed to part you from your money.

      It’s pretty obvious, really.

  13. But he still detected a fraud from a distance.

    It wasn’t luck.

    Anyone who has experienced expert-certified BS long enough, and figured out that it was BS, develops an instinct for it. Trump has a history of not taking the prescriptions of managerial types and bureaucrats at face value and bypassing them to hear what employees think the issues are and he’s learned that the so-called “experts” have their own agenda that often doesn’t correspond to reality. He’s developed an instinct for BS without having to know the details.

  14. Scot says, China treats religion as a medical problem. Are they wrong?
    Yes.
    But China’s government is religion.
    Communists have always consider religion as a problem, because Communism is
    religion.
    We are fast moving world and people want, change, change, change- yet it is changing
    a lot. It is changing, and people appear to like the change.
    As I said, we are in magical world- though there are things which don’t change. Religion doesn’t change. Politics doesn’t change.
    Btw, I don’t believe in AI singularity. But it’s kind of a new religion.
    We can make things which are better than ourselves.
    With strange ideas of what that would be. Though it kind of like having children- lots of hope they will better than ourselves. Also the AI singularity is sort of like Eugenics.
    And in similar ways, doomed.
    Anyways, now got to get back to Scotty- he does pretty good at summarizing the news of day.

  15. Sounds like a great find, Willis! I’m adding to my list of books to read while I try to get back to productive employment…

    If you have the time and wherewithal for a deep dive on mass delusion sweeping the nation (here in Canada, too), may I suggest Cynical Theories, by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay: https://cynicaltheories.com/

    James gave a great interview on American Thought Leaders on many of the topics discussed in his latest book; it’s a great primer for the book.

    badEnglish

  16. Having mild dyslexia and attendant lack of a dominant hand or foot, growing up was full of uncertainty, which foot to kick with, being punished for switching hands while playing tennis (“what’s wrong with that?.)

    I tended to give everyone the benefit of the doubt when they made “firm” assertions. However, as I learned more and more, I discovered that many of their assertions were junk or just wrong. I found that mild neurosis of uncertainty made me learn things more closely and try to organize them (against my uncertain knowledge).

    I ended up accidentally with a structure that some call a knowledge filter. More accurately, it is a BS filter in today’s world. When I edit a new research science paper, it is easy to detect whether something makes sense to not and, when I learn new science, I have a place to put it in my framework, then allows connections to be made.

    Developing a knowledge filter should be part of and a goal of our educational system.

  17. About haircuts Willis –
    when the restrictions started, I bought a hair barbering kit online, and the missus has tended my old silver locks since.
    The only thing missing during my time on the barbering chair is any kind of response when I say –
    “I hear the pinks are running at Campbell River”

    • “Pinks at Campbell? It’s ON!”

      There’s a lovely couple of Korean women, the shop owner and her offsider, and that good lady and I get our hair cut there. Yes, we can cut each others’ hair, and when we lived on a remote coral atoll that’s what we did. But now? We like the haircuts.

      So we went today. They’re only supposed to cut hair outside. We asked how they were doing, and laughed about the fact that they’re classed as “non-essential” and were closed for months, while the local marijuana dispensary is classed as “essential” and never closed.

      Mostly, we went to support them and give them business … we could cut our own hair and save the money, but we both would rather assist them in staying afloat.

      That plus the annual flu vaccine was my whole day. Oh, plus watching the Giants baseball team beat Seattle. I’m overjoyed that they’ve kept playing. Hey, do I know how to party or what?

      End the lockdowns, folks, this is all coronamania …

      w.

          • My brother, who is bald in the Friar Tuck style, maintains that “A man is given a certain amount of testosterone to last a lifetime … and if you want to waste it on your head, that’s up to you”.

            And since he’s a certified genius and holds a Discover Award for Technical Innovation for developing the first civilian GPS, he must be right, amirite? …

            w.

            ===
            “Some of the most intriguing technologies Discover has come across started with government or military funding. In 1991, for instance, Ralph Eschenbach and Trimble Navigation received a Discover award for finding consumer uses for the global positioning system. The Pentagon developed GPS in the 1970s so military personnel would know their exact position (and time!) anywhere on the planet. Today it seems amusing that someone had to think of a consumer use for GPS. Now it’s everywhere.”
            ===

          • “And since he’s a certified genius and holds a Discover Award for Technical Innovation for developing the first civilian GPS, he must be right, amirite?”

            He must be rich, too! 🙂

  18. “Meanwhile, it’s been hot and dry here on our Northern California hillside. A new fire has broken out northeast of us, but it’s not likely to move this way. And no, it’s not from “climate change” …”

    Washington State Gov Jay Inslee would disagree with you. According to him, every wildfire is made worse by climate change. That reasoning got him about 0.0% in the polls during his run for POTUS recently. Even Democrats couldn’t follow his “reasoning” as rational.

  19. I agree masks at the beach are silly. If it’s not for a very crowded sidewalk they might be completely unnecessary outside at all.

    • No kidding Ron, in MN, Governor Dumbo has a mask mandate and people are still catching and dying from the Corona. How do I know? We are bombarded by daily reports on TV, radio and print.

      Either people need to tighten up their masks or they simply are not working.

      • Masks that most non-medical types use are a “social” accommodation that help to keep interactions pleasant.
        Physical distancing (the 6 feet thing) and common sense – don’t cough and sneeze on people; stay home if sick – are good ideas. And so at any time.
        Our governors-dumbo went from preventing overload of the medical system (flatten the curve) to full-out totalitarianism.
        Panic2020.

      • @Derg
        Or people are not as compliant and careful as they should? Equally possible. Or it’s just like with any measure it needs time to change the stats. 2 weeks on average for cases, 4 weeks for deaths. This pattern is quite constant around the globe.

        In NYC people are wearing masks nearly everywhere and are pretty compliant. Cases are staying low though the outside dining and drinking is well perceived. We’ll see if that changes now with kids going back to school and indoor dining starting at 25% capacity on Sep 30th.

  20. Read “Win Bigly” when it was released on Amazon 18 months ago. Still in my nightstand drawer to peruse occasionally. Climate change and it alarmism is such a huge mass delusion fueled by model fakers, liars, and pseudoscientists whose names we’ve talked and written about here at WUWT for a decade. Historians in 60 years, when all of us are dead and the climate change fakers pseudoscientists in academia and government too, will be writing in wonderment at this phenomenon of delusion as a cautionary tale.

    On Scott’s observation of Trump, “But he still detected a fraud from a distance.”
    Yes he did. And a lot of other things besides climate. He detected the Faker, Liars, and Frauds in both the Democratic Party and in the Republican Party. Fakers like Establishment candidate Jeb Bush who was extremely vulnerable outside the Fat Cat crony capitalists who could support both a Hillary or a Jeb.
    Trump kicked Jeb to the curb like a 50 cent hooker with the Republican voters desperate for something other than beltway bandit RINOs.

  21. The problem with climate science is that it stopped being science at least 32 years ago. The sharp turn occurred in June 1988 when Jim Hansen misled Congress with his fake surety and absent uncertainty envelopes.

    Complicated prediction models with lots of assumptions” is not science. In real science, as opposed to the case with consensus climatology, assumptions do not have the weight of data.

    Assumptions are provisional, and recognized so. Experiments are carried out specifically to mortally test assumptions. As an experimental scientist, I have done exactly that and have seen it done in the field as a matter of course.

    Grounding theory in the judgment of experiment is the only method that keeps science on the straight and narrow of objective knowledge. All the rest is subjectivist narration.

    Climatology does not do experiments. It has observations. Astrophysics as well. Astrophysics is able to make observations of sufficient accuracy to test its theories. Where it cannot, its practitioners hope to do in the future.

    However, all climate observations, all of them, are far too low resolution to test the assumption that CO2 impacts air temperature.

    Low resolution observations and the unavailability of experiments leaves the door wide open for climate modelers to speculate freely, and to run around pretending that ensemble variance tells them something about physical reality.

    Climate modelers are so poorly trained that they don’t even know that their free-wheeling unconstrained speculations are mere pseudo-science decorated with mathematics. And they become hostile when told so.

    But the real offense is not that a bunch of applied mathematicians are having a speculative high-paying field day and a fine time posing as planetary saviors.

    The real offense is that the ferschlunginer American Physical Society has kept its mouth shut for 32 years about the worst and most incredibly damaging infection of cancerous pseudo-science the world has ever seen.

    Whether done cravenly or cynically or by delusion, the APS should be never forgiven its offense against science and humanity. Never. Ever.

    • “free-wheeling unconstrained speculations are mere pseudo-science decorated with mathematics”

      A sort of glorified computer game… at best

      glorified only by themselves.

      Actually, if games programmers were as hopeless as these guys, computer games would be history.

    • “Whether done cravenly or cynically or by delusion…”

      You’ve left out the most obvious answer; they’re simply poor scientists. They are improperly educated by commercial collegiate institutions, unable to do the requisite research, because the real money now goes to engineers working for companies, so that’s where the highly-capable talent goes.

      I saw the other day a quote which indicates that APS now actively supports the AGW consensus and science. Inexcusable!

      • Eric, I know Phil Bucksbaum, the current president of the APS. He’s a brilliant laser physicist.

        No way he’s a poor scientist or badly educated.

        I sent him a copy of my paper showing that climate models are predictively useless. He first said he’d consider it. But he met my follow-up emails with silence.

        He hasn’t told me it’s wrong (it isn’t). I believe he fully understands it’s correct, and that the models have no predictive capacity. So, then, why the refractory adhesion to the AGW story?

        My own personal opinion, unverified and not validated, is that it’s moral cowardice. I believe there’s a lot of that going around.

        • Thanks for the reply, Pat! Is the symbol of APS an ostrich? Perhaps its tied to the liberal providers of research grants for said scientists? They don’t speak out for fear of being ostracized?

          I’m not a scientist, more of an amateur theorist, but I can follow along with the discussions. It doesn’t take a brilliant scientist to understand the limitations of statistical sampling precision and the egregious margin of error induced (not claimed in all media reports so far as I can ever see), nor to see the preeminence of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. What does strike me as flawed to the point of deliberate deception is that NASA KNOWS the greenhouse has no roof, per the SABER satellite program, and yet they stick with the CO2 theory too.

    • Pat Frank,
      Succinctly and devastatingly stated. Bravo!
      The professional (alleged) associations beclowning themselves over climate science has damaged credibility of all scientific endevours.
      Will archive this in my climate folder so I don’t lose it.

      • Thanks, Robert, and you’re right. The reputation of science and of scientists has been wounded and will never fully recover.

  22. From an Australian perspective, it doesn’t seem credible that China thinks global warming is a hoax but encourages western countries to believe and act on it. Does China really want Australia to stop mining thermal coal and exporting it to China? We have been in a bit of a trade war with China recently, with the Chinese targeting barley and wine. In the meantime, thermal coal exports to China soared in the first half of the year. Will the trade war extend to coal? We’d suffer if coal exports ceased, but at least the CO2 emissions we’re responsible for would drop.

    • The world CO2 emissions would actually increase the replacement coal China would burn would be lower quality. This is the problem with the green emission control shell game if the demand is there it will be met by someone. Prohibition has never worked in there entire history of mankind from Nuclear Weapons, Alcohol to drugs and you would have to be mentally defective to think it’s going to work on emission control.

  23. I think 99% of scientists do not generate their own theories. They merely fall in line with the 1%, who are only right 50% of the time.

    Mainstream climate scientists are all followers of an early 19th century geothermal denier: Fourier. It’s “rational” to listen to the guy that never saw a borehole temperature profile.

    Future scientists will be laughing at 20th and early 21st century greenhouse gas junkies.

    • As if a borehole temperature profile had anything to do with how much energy is being radiated from the earth.
      That’s like saying that measuring the voltage of a battery can tell you how much current is flowing from the battery.

  24. Yes W, absolutely.

    What Scott is describing with the filter and hallucinations is Magical Thinking – where-upon The Thinker dwells on a subject, any subject, for soooo long and sooo deeply, whatever it was becomes real to them.

    It is endemic in alcoholics and cannabis users – don’t they *always* insist that The Drug is not hurting them and furthermore.implore you to join them in the habit.
    Alcohol and cannabis being potent depressants, but folks in ‘ordinary’ depression go there too.

    Then he mentions hysteria – basically= Panic
    It is, in medical parlance, an ‘Over Active Startle Response’
    Yet again it is endemic in folks who are chronically depressed.

    BUT, as Adams implies, it is now endemic *everywhere*
    Why is everyone depressed?
    For the same reason that ‘afternoon power naps’ are needed, why school kids fall asleep an hour after getting to school in the morning and why coffee (optionally nicotine also), both = potent stimulants are often normally taken after a ‘large meal’

    The answer is why a highly processed/malted carbohydrate based drink, loaded with refined sugar is a good remedy for insomnia (Horlicks or Ovaltine here in the UK)

    Sugar is the cause of the whole carbuncle = Glucose (blood) sugar as we obtain from eating cooked starch
    It destroys our minds just as effectively as it destroys our bodies. It is a not especially potent deprssant but we consume it 3,5,5+ times per day. Every day

    There is No Remedy because, there are now soooo many of us there is *nothing* else to eat.
    Combine that with low levels of Vitamin B & D plus desperately low levels of Iron, Magnesium, Selenium & Zinc (WHERE do we hear about Zinc???!!!) we, as a Global Collective, in some VERY deep $hit

    But as we see around here, no-one wants to know. Magical Thinking at its very best!

    You mention The Trump.
    What’s noticeable about him? 2 things immediately
    He doesn’t drink or do drugs and has a very good looking, younger than him, wife

    And as Willis’ GEGF will assert – what is THE most attractive thing girls find in men if not a GSOH

    The GSOH indicates freedom from Chronic Depression – the GSOH, *any* sense of humour is the thing most immediately lacking in all alarmists. Also Government, media, bureaucracies everywhere in the West at least.

  25. ……..there is nothing new under the sun.

    I would suggest that mass delusion has defined most of the 20th century, the 21st looks no different.

  26. Climate Alarmism has now graduated to a full – scale religion.As GK Chesterton wrote “When people stop believing in God they don’t believe in nothing.They believe in anything.”

  27. I used to write, virtually every day, the motto “QUESTION EVERYTHING”, on my geology classroom blackboard. In other words, “take no one’s word for it, check it out for yourselves”. I abjured the students that this applied to everything I said, but many of them were too indoctrinated by the system to dare to question my utterances. The good students challenged me on countless points.

  28. Thanks for another fun column. My own take as a physicist on popular beliefs. When push comes to shove on politics, I tell people that I don’t even believe my own positions. I tell them to consider the amount of work that goes into solving even the simplest of problems; e.g. “What is a vacuum?” or “What is the response of an electron gas to a proton?” People still haven’t gotten a right answer to these problems — even after years of work. Why do you think you can understand politics (a much more open-ended problem) without putting in an at least equivalent amount of work.

  29. Emotion over reason. A person who thinks with their emotions does not think at all, but tends to relate well. Think about how much the old style of education was based on developing discipline and to an extent, rote learning. Any notion that education should be emotionally satisfying was utterly foreign to the model. But for 50 years now children have been increasingly taught in an environment that seeks to entertain and engage at the expense of mental discipline. People educated in this system have naturally shifted their preferences to emotionally engaging arguments. This will not end well.

  30. Thanks for this post, Willis. I’ve read Loserthink but not Win Bigly. I’ve been following Scott Adams for a few years, mostly by watching his daily videos, so I’ve absorbed the main points. About climate science, I recall he once made the point that if the system is self-regulating with respect to temperature, then all the models and consensus claims are obviously wrong. So I am looking forward to Scott eventually coming to appreciate the observable “emergent climate phenomena” you have been writing about for years. Another discovery I hope he makes is what Pat Frank has been saying and documenting – that there is no way presently to diagnose or predict the impact of carbon dioxide emissions. As he noted above in a comment, the resolution of observations and models is far too low for that. I think if Scott Adams were to grasp that concept, he could communicate it better than most.

  31. Scott is proof his ideas are correct as he’s blocked many people on twitter (including myself) for pointing out his rather obvious lack of impartiality when it comes to manmade global warming and COVID… where he “trusts the experts”.

    I would read his tweets on these topics and was wondering what game he was playing but I’ve come to believe his brain is rejecting his own ideas. He’s as bad as Taleb.

  32. While Scott Adams unquestioningly has some brilliant ideas, I don’t always agree with his conclusions. It has been evident to me for a few decades now, that there are what he calls “2D” and “3D” worldviews. It is also apparent to me that while there is a small percentage of people that are all 2D or all 3D almost all the time, the vast majority of the population is somewhere in between and they move around within that continuum depending on circumstances. Even the amount of movement (flexibility) varies by individual. I don’t think that our current civilization would be possible if most of the population was squarely in the 3D camp all the time; we would still be stuck in the dark ages.

    I would also add under the Confirmation Bias section that people will often just dismiss/ignore facts that don’t support their worldview, as this is usually cognitively simpler than twisting them into a supporting role.

  33. Thanks Willis. It’s funny that Ralph L. Smith Lumber Co. figured out 70 years ago how to manage the forests around where you and I grew up. And no, it wasn’t burning down the forest as the mass delusionists would have it. The selectively logged and replanted on a regular basis, lowering the fuel load one truck load at a time.

  34. Almost everything we know is second hand. There’s a lifelong quest to estimate probabilities. Some people give most weight to observation and experiment, but most people rely on fashionable opinion. And the latter group is in charge.

  35. I like to refer to the 2-D world dwellers as “Stupidians”; they’re happily, or unhappily, unaware, willing to jump on whichever bandwagon the Intelligensia has presented to them, and will ride it until the inevitable ditch or until the wheels fall off. At that point they will promptly jump off and proceed to emphatically beat the dead horse. The incorrect science, sloppy statistical presentation, and haphazard physics application trouble them not one iota. The cannot even grasp the concept that the bubbly stuff in their cans of soda is plant food, essential for photosynthesis. CO2 is bad in the 2-D world, period.

    • 3-Ds are nothing more than neo-gnostics and are as stupid and worldly, or more so, than the 2-Ds they exalt themselves above. To truly know and understand, you must become 4-D. No 4-D marginalizes any 2/3-Ds; they pity and love them.

      • I was just thinking to point out that perhaps, indeed, the 3rd dimension is not the end of the story either. Nor, I suspect, is the 4th!

  36. Scott Adams has some interesting takes, but don’t forget that ultimately – he’s a persuader.
    Or put another way: how can any persuader be relied upon for objective analysis? Particularly a persuader who fills a very specific (and small) niche?
    His work during 2016 on Trump was good; his other non-cartoon work, generally not so much.

  37. My own personal favorite scientist is Alfred Wegener. I mentioned his name a few years ago on a WaPo forum on the subject of climate change, and received lots of “thumbs down.”

  38. Started listening to Scott Adams in 2015 because he was the only guy who explained what Trump was doing. Not only did he do that but explained how he was doing it, why and what was going to happen next. He has kept it up since. Trump is a trained persuader too.

    I don’t understand the world of persuasion at all, finding it making less sense than quantum physics, which I understand hardly at all. It is a field at right angles from everything I think I understand, but I’m working on it.

    He does a few other things of note. One is the notion of two movies on the same screen. This falls out of his observation that reality is not something we humans evolved to recognize or even need, so we create our own individual realities based on which facts we choose to use. Reality may or may not exist at all, as it is not an evolutionary necessity. He kind of pokes at it with his comments on the Simulation (think Matrix mentioned earlier).

    Final observation is that we Americans have labored mightily to build a society that supposedly rationally draws conclusions based on data. All the structures are in place to do so. Problem is that the data is crap, and we have been in GIGO land for decades, perhaps centuries.

    There were a couple Tommy Lee Jones lines in Men In Black that captured the notion of human irrationality nicely. Who knew the writers were this close to whatever passes for reality these days? Cheers –

    “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!”

    “1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”

    • If we had not evolved to detect and pay attention to physical reality, agimarc, we would have rapidly starved and/or rapidly been predated into extinction as a species.

      Imagined reality became an option when humans became relatively safe from the immediate dangers of physical reality. When safe – especially when made safe by the efforts of others – humans can be self-servingly delusional without mortal consequence.

      Personally created reality is a luxury of high civilization.

  39. My father taught me to “do the math” when people make claims. Many of my friends over the years have followed the Global Warming lemmings until I gently nudged them towards looking into the facts behind the claims.
    I got a Economist friend to look at the programs being used and the results they were getting. He came to me and told me he couldn’t believe how poor the programming was and how overblown the hype of the final results. He found one program that got the same results regardless of the input.
    I got a friend who had a physics background to look at the forecasting models. He came back laughing at the claims being made for predictions 5-10-20 years down the line.
    Another friend was a Chemist. I got her to look at the “ocean acidification” studies. She came back to me marveling at how the studies had no real basis in science.
    Most Scientists believe that other Scientists have the same qualifications and standards that they do. They are the ones most easily swayed by the appeal to authority. If you can get them to take the time to look into the actual science you often get another Catastrophic Global Warming opponent.

  40. Not sure I agree with Scott’s definition of confirmation bias. I think that is our tendency to give more weight to facts and opinions that agree with what we already believe.

  41. Well done Willis just shows even at 73 your eyes can be opened.

    Most of those you have debated back radiative heating with or nett heat transfer etc etc have had their eyes open for decades longer, and could see the absurdity of a frigid atmosphere warming a considerably warmer surface below it.

  42. Thanks Willis….was not aware of this book. I have always considered Scott Adams to be a miracle…he sees the world as it is, yet can still relate to other people!

    About the only way that I have found to wade through the 2D vs 3D conundrum is two fold:
    1) While I presume that any given situation is reflected in some sort of overall objective reality, I also presume that it is also essentially impossible to fully appreciate that reality (simply based on the limits of our own existence).
    2) Trying to reconcile 1) by looking for commonality….is a trap…see confirmation bias (better defined as group think). I have found that a more successful path lies in looking at differences rather than similarities. I have found this generally leads to a more usable assessment of any given situation. Inherently fragmented, large areas of void. Probably the best one can do. I continue to lobby for this “method”. Example: For the incredibly muddy and chaotic information and discussion presented related to Covid-19 here at WUWT (and obviously elsewhere)…I look not where you (Willis) and Lord Monckton, and Rud Istvan, and Rich Davis, (to name but a few) agree, but where you disagree. Trying to answer the question “why do they disagree” I think leads to much more useful information that trying to answer the question “why do they agree”, or worse, “where to they agree”. Why? I think this method tends to lessen the impact of confirmation bias and group think. We humans do not take naturally and kindly to holding opinions which are outside the tribe (no matter how small the tribe).

    I ask, ney, beg….present more commentary where you ask the question” why does my analysis disagree with x”s analysis?”. Note the fundamental difference between this and simply providing support/or rebuttal for a particular position or analysis. Go for more underlying understanding, not just trading data pot shots.

    Real world lesson for me:

    Many years ago, I was a decent “root cause” investigator at a nuclear power plant. I was acceptably capable of researching and finding underlying causes of various incidents. I thought I was doing pretty well.

    On my way home one day, I came across a house fire. No one was there yet. I stopped, checked for anyone in the house (fortunately empty) and called the fire department. As a civilian in a small town, I was still able to help out, holding a hose, etc. In other words, I found the fire at the beginning, and was there through the bitter end. I had lots of time to witness and absorb what had happened.

    A few days later the state fire marshals office called me to ask what I had found (they were investigating the cause) and what I observed. Among other things they asked about was which way the ground level basement door opened (ie into the basement, or out of the basement). I confidently stated/recalled that the door opened into the basement.

    The next day, I drove by the ruins of the house and checked that door. I was wrong, it opened the other way.

    That lesson has never left me. I learned several things: The fire marshall was an excellent investigator (by asking that question, he could ascertain how accurate my memory was). To me much more importantly I asked my self why was I wrong. The answer is far more complex that I just made a simple mistake.

    I don’t have a clear answer as to why I got the door wrong, but I do think that I eventually became better at my root cause investigation (and other complex analysis) by continuing to worry at the question.

    Best Regards,
    Ethan Brand

    • Ethan – you were caught by the way the brain processes sensory info. There are those that believe that only 10% of sensory info makes its way into the brain. The brain fills in the rest. This is the reason that eyewitness accounts ALWAYS change over time and why eyewitness testimony changes over time even from folks who were there. It is also the reason that the “lying to investigators” federal rule is so very unfair, as the way it is used today (especially against those of us on the right), is that if the second telling of the tale is not identical to the first telling, you are by definition guilty of obstruction and lying to investigators.

      You also see this in the handicapper world, as those on the autism spectrum don’t have that filter in varying degrees. As such, they are literally drowning in sensory overload, trying to drink and process a firehose of incoming data. All the weird physical mannerisms are generally a way to control the inbound flow.

      You got the door wrong because that is the way your (and all the rest of us) brain works. Cheers –

  43. I wish Adams would stick to his comics. His knowledge of climate science is too weak for rational comnents. We have all been living in a period of intermittent global warming (started after the Little Ice Age).

    Who was harmed? No one. Alaska has warmer winter nights. How is that bad? It’s actually good news. The planet is greening. Is that a problem? No, it is good news.

    The past climate is reality, and never mind all the “adjustments” to historicsl temperature data!

    The future climate is unknown. The physics of climate change are not known with enough precision to create a real climate model. What we have are computer games that predict whatever their owners want to predict. They are personal opinions disguised with complex math and science. The future climate remains a wild guess.

    The two fatal flaws of the climate change cult:
    (1)
    After 4.5 billion years of climate change from natural causes, they assert that natural cause’s of climate
    change no longer matter, woth no explanation, and
    (2)
    They declare the climate in the mid-1700s was perfect, and any change from then, in either direction, is bad news. The climate back then is just a very rough estimate, and people living at the time generally thought it was too cold, although better than the late 1600s. This bizarre belief is logic fit for a village idiot, or a leftist (I repeat myself)!

  44. “…if an ordinary idiot doubts a scientific truth, the most likely explanation for that situation is that the idiot is wrong. But if a trained persuader calls BS on a scientific truth, pay attention.”

    I suspect that you mean the likes of me when you say “ordinary idiot”, and so I’d like to know how you expect such a person to recognize “scientific” truth, or indeed, any sort of truth? For that matter, I wonder how any idiot, ordinary or not, can be “wrong” or “right”? Worse yet, if an idiot can’t recognize a “scientific truth”, is it reasonable to expect him/her to recognize a “trained persuader”?

    I enjoy Dilbert despite my idiocy, but I think Scott Adams should stick to what he’s good at – wry humour.

  45. Facts matter to Boy Scouts who are taught that piling trash around a furnace is a recipe for disaster, which consequences are replicated when tree huggers in California and Oregon promote policies where tinder is allowed, nay encouraged, to accumulate around old-growth trees.

    In CA and OR, scouting is out and wacko environmentalism is in, at least until sanity is restored and humans come to their senses.

    Of course, that’s just a theoretical possibility and not a certainty because no old-growth forest advocate would be caught dead reading a book written by Dilbert’s creator.

    • There’s also the refusal to keep the forests healthy by removing trees infested with disease and insects that will kill them. A certain amount of dead trees are needed for various animals that for the most part nest in or on them, but those should be kept pretty far apart and the ones selected to keep should be sturdy, not in imminent danger of falling down.

      We can see what a policy of inaction does. Have a look at the forests blasted down in 1980 by Mt. St. Helens. The land managed by companies for timber was replanted and grew back as healthy forests. The land left alone by the government still looked in 2006 like it did after the eruption 26 years earlier. The scenery was still so destroyed and desolate it was used to shoot scenes for the post apocalyptic movie “The Road”. In 2020, 40 years after the eruption, there’s still a huge swath to the north of the mountain where there are few, if any, trees and only grasses, wildflowers and other small plants growing.

      Why not randomly scatter a lot of seeds from all the species of conifer trees native to the area? Had that been done 35 years ago the blasted area would be a vibrant forest today.

  46. Regarding the Second Dimension (2D):

    A huge number of people believe the following falsehoods:
    Increasing atmospheric CO2 causes dangerous global warming – FALSE.
    Increasing atmospheric CO2 causes dangerous climate change – FALSE.
    Green energy (wind and solar power generation) can reliably replace fossil fuels – FALSE.
    The full-Gulag lockdown for Covid-19 was necessary to save lives – FALSE.
    BLM and Antifa are legitimate (and non-violent) protests by well-meaning activists – FALSE.

    Seems to be a tonne of popular delusion out there – does 2D stand for Too Delusional or Too Dumb?

    https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/15/people-are-starting-to-see-what-black-lives-matter-really-is-damani-felder-speaks-out-against-blm/
    [excerpt]
    It’s all a leftist scam – the enviro BS including the phony court challenges, the full-Gulag lockdown for Covid-19, paid-and-planned protests by Antifa and BLM – it’s all lies.

    We published that the climate-and-green-energy rant was a false narrative in 2002, and by 2012 or earlier I wrote that there was a covert agenda, Now the greens are admitting that climate-and-energy was false propaganda, a smokescreen for their totalitarian objectives.

    The green objective is to destroy prosperity and move the USA into a planned economy – with a few rich at the top looking down on the many poor peasants. That model now describes most of the countries in the world. Europe and Canada are far down that path, and the USA will follow if Biden and the Demo-Marxists are elected.

  47. Here is the opening of my Blog from 2017

    “The CO2 Derangement Syndrome – the Millennial Turning Point and the Coming Cooling’

    A very large majority of establishment academic climate scientists have succumbed to a virulent infectious disease – the CO2 Derangement Syndrome. Those afflicted by this syndrome present with a spectrum of symptoms .The first is an almost total inability to recognize the most obvious Millennial and 60 year emergent patterns which are trivially obvious in solar activity and global temperature data. This causes the natural climate cycle variability to appear frightening and emotionally overwhelming. Critical thinking capacity is badly degraded. The delusionary world inhabited by the eco-left establishment activist elite is epitomized by Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes science-based fiction, ” The Collapse of Western-Civilization: A View from the Future” Oreskes and Conway imagine a world devastated by climate change. Intellectual hubris, confirmation bias, group think and a need to feel at once powerful and at the same time morally self-righteous caused those worst affected to convince themselves, politicians, governments, the politically correct chattering classes and almost the entire UK and US media that anthropogenic CO2 was the main climate driver. This led governments to introduce policies which have wasted trillions of dollars in a quixotic and futile attempt to control earth’s temperature by reducing CO2 emissions.”
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-millennial.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *