[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
LEFT WING LOONS Title: DELINGPOLE: Dilbert Disses Global Warming; Liberal Heads Explode Scott Adams has gone full-on climate denialist in his latest Dilbert strip, causing liberal heads to explode. Some of his old fans just arent happy at this betrayal of The Cause: its a shame to see this as I used to think he was very funny. The Way of the Weasel was an awesome book. On Scott Adams, his comic strip and thought processes have pretty clearly jumped the shark No doubt it is an accident of the pen. But the climate scientist in the cartoon bears more than a passing resemblance to Michael Mann, globally renowned inventor of the Hockey Stick and winner or so he used to claim till he got rumbled of the Nobel Prize. As Homer would say, this cartoon is funny because its true. In fact it sums up pretty much everything the layman needs to know about the state of climate science and how it abuses the public trust. So, it starts with truths which are widely accepted the basic science of physics and chemistry. Then like a street magician or a confidence trickster it slips quickly from the realm of evident truth into a world of illusion: We put that data into dozens of different climate models and ignore the ones that look wrong to us. Anyone who questions this groupthink is labelled a science denier. But as Adams has grasped it has nothing to do with science. Rather its about the politically driven misapplication of models which have no real-world basis. This cartoon is by no means Adamss first brush with WrongThink. In September last year, he caused more liberal heads to explode by publicly switching his allegiance from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. One of his cannier insights was that Trumps bluster is actually a sign of emotional intelligence and deal-making skills rather than a sign as the progressives continue to believe that he is a dangerous lunatic. Trump paces the public meaning he matches them in their emotional state, and then some. He does that with his extreme responses on immigration, fighting ISIS, stop-and-frisk, etc. Once Trump has established himself as the biggest bad-ass on the topic, he is free to lead, which we see him do by softening his deportation stand, limiting his stop-and-frisk comment to Chicago, reversing his first answer on penalties for abortion, and so on. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump look scary. If you understand pacing and leading, you might see him as the safest candidate who has ever gotten this close to the presidency. Thats how I see him. Dilbert has gone fascist, Salons Amanda Marcotte responded, with typical verve, wit and lightness of touch. Then in March this year, the jack-booted, blackshirted cartoonist caused further outrage by composing one of the best essays ever written as to why the claims of climate alarmists should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. It was titled How To Convince Skeptics That Climate Change Is A Problem. Here are two of my favorite entries: Dont tell me how well your models predict the past. Tell me how many climate models have ever been created, since we started doing this sort of thing, and tell me how many have now been discarded because they didnt predict correctly. If the answer is All of the old ones failed and we were totally surprised because they were good at hindcasting, then why would I trust the new ones? and If skeptics make you retreat to Pascals Wager as your main argument for aggressively responding the climate change, please understand that you lost the debate. The world is full of risks that might happen. We dont treat all of them as real. And we cant rank any of these risks to know how to allocate our capital to the best path. Should we put a trillion dollars into climate remediation or use that money for a missile defense system to better protect us from North Korea? Needless to say, this also caused liberal heads to explode. Heres a sample from one particularly virulent climate activist. None of Adams concepts are supported in any manner. He produces no research tied to it. There is no rigorous method applied to rationalize it. Its little more than cultish ramblings validated by a small loyal following acquired through his previous success as a cartoonist. As Adams must be painfully aware by now, when youre taking flak it means youre over the target. Carry on Scott! Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
many a true word is said in jest
Maybe this will get through to the marks.
Great piece. Thanks for posting.
It sure surprised me. Glad you liked it.
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|