The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-13-2017, 04:23 PM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 10,756
Scott Adams, full blown climate denier.

Not having a Sunday paper, we get the Sunday comics on Saturday. I had sort of known that Scott Adams had joined the dark side, but didn't realize until I saw today's Sunday Dilbert strip to what extent he had. It not only denies climate change, it ridicules the people who study it. Since his strip has grown increasingly repetitive, I shall henceforth stop reading it.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 05-13-2017, 04:40 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 20,951
I hadn't read it with any regularity in years, but I would still check it occasionally. Up until a year or so ago when it came out what a nutcase he is.

I guess 30-ish years of minor fame and a little bit of pussy took his brain for a ride.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-13-2017, 04:55 PM
Fubaya Fubaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
I've never read Dilbert and have no interest in Adams, but the Chapo Trap House Podcast had a segment on him a few weeks ago where they deconstructed an article about Adams and it was hilarious.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-13-2017, 05:09 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
It's long been my observation that while Scott Adams' cartoons are funny and often perceptive -- though to be fair he gets most of his ideas from reader contributions -- his books where he attempts to be semi-serious are pretty much complete crap, except for the cartoon archives that he illustrates them with. It was only much more recently that I started becoming aware of what a nutbar he really is. Some of his latest pontifications and his obsession with hypnotism suggest either extreme eccentricity or early-onset dementia.

On climate change, he's convinced himself that most scientists support AGW because there's a great social and professional cost in doing otherwise. That's right, Scott, there's always a significant social and professional cost to being a moron who advocates crazy ideas completely unsupported by evidence, like, for example, you. And that's nothing new, and rightly so. He also believes that both sides of the "debate" are equally credible, thus demonstrating that he not only isn't a scientist as he readily admits, but that he doesn't have the intellectual capacity to think like one. And he also claims that "slow-moving disasters" like climate change are things that we can easily fix (like by "scrubbing the atmosphere") which is totally false, naive, utter claptrap, and ignores among other things tipping points and permanent global circulation changes and associated major regional climate changes, permanent impacts on the ecosystem, long-term feedbacks, permanent loss of polar ice, and sea level rise. The man has become a dangerous idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-13-2017, 08:22 PM
Mangosteen Mangosteen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
The worst of the climate "deniers" are people like Al Gore, Michael Moore and Leonardo Dicaprio.

Al Gore owns several homes and his mansion in Tennessee uses as much fossil fuel (natural gas) in one month than most homes in the area use in a year. And don't buy his "credit offsets" excuse. Burning lots of fossil fuel means burning fossil fuel, period.

Micheal Moore owns NINE homes according to his divorce papers. Way to protect the environment, Micheal!

Dicaprio flies in private jets all over the world and tells the rest of us to reduce our carbon foot print. Do as I say, not as I do.

And then there is President Barack “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money” Obama pocketing millions in "speaking fees" and flying by private jet with a 14 vehicle escort to a Climate conference.

Haven't these people heard of video conferencing?

These people are the real climate deniers.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-13-2017, 08:53 PM
CairoCarol CairoCarol is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
(Mangosteen, you do know that "denier" is not a synonym for "hypocrite," right?)

On Scott Adams, his comic strip and thought processes have pretty clearly jumped the shark. But I feel bad about that, because I have a personal, pre-internet memory of him being a nice guy. Back before the internet, in 1994, I started publishing a monthly newsletter for the business organization I was running. I was looking for ways to make it something that people would want to pick up, and I thought that if we could run Dilbert comic strips, that would appeal to people. But we had no budget for purchasing rights to republish.

So I wrote to Scott Adams (snail mail!) and explained our situation, asking if it would be okay if we ran one of his comic strips every month, even though we couldn't pay for the privilege.

I quickly got a very nice personal response, granting permission. So 20+ years ago, Scott Adams was, at least in this instance, a nice guy.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-13-2017, 09:38 PM
Smapti Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Swerve City, WA
Posts: 14,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
And then there is President Barack “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money” Obama pocketing millions in "speaking fees" and flying by private jet with a 14 vehicle escort to a Climate conference.
We, it's certainly a good thing that our current president believes in the value of simple living.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-13-2017, 11:34 PM
Fubaya Fubaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
The worst of the climate "deniers" are people like Al Gore, Michael Moore and Leonardo Dicaprio.

Al Gore owns several homes and his mansion in Tennessee uses as much fossil fuel (natural gas) in one month than most homes in the area use in a year. And don't buy his "credit offsets" excuse. Burning lots of fossil fuel means burning fossil fuel, period.

Micheal Moore owns NINE homes according to his divorce papers. Way to protect the environment, Micheal!

Dicaprio flies in private jets all over the world and tells the rest of us to reduce our carbon foot print. Do as I say, not as I do.

And then there is President Barack “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money” Obama pocketing millions in "speaking fees" and flying by private jet with a 14 vehicle escort to a Climate conference.

Haven't these people heard of video conferencing?

These people are the real climate deniers.
Wrong thread?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-13-2017, 11:59 PM
usedtobe usedtobe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Scott Adams was a programmer for PTT - Pac Bell.

That shop was the inspiration for Dilbert - right down to the conflicting roles of what they called 'managers"

i did a stint there one summer - first thing out of anybody's mouth: Scott Adams works HERE! We ARE Dilbert.

As i said: complete zoo.

The strip went downhill fast after Adams decided he could live off Dilbert proceeds - he fired his muse.
Only rarely a good idea

No, I never got around to look at the clever monkey in cubicle 1E68. odd thing.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-14-2017, 05:26 AM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 27,222
What happened to Dilbert's white shirt and upturned necktie? He looks like a hipster.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-14-2017, 07:44 AM
JackieLikesVariety JackieLikesVariety is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
it's a shame to see this as I used to think he was very funny. The Way of the Weasel was an awesome book.
it could be dementia - that is a thing that happens to people
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-14-2017, 08:05 AM
teela brown teela brown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
I'm reminded of when Johnny Hart started taking B.C. off the rails, and the strip had to be moved to the religion section of the newspaper. I hope a similar sea change doesn't happen with Dilbert. I've been reading and relating to it for half of my working life.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-14-2017, 08:36 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by teela brown View Post
I'm reminded of when Johnny Hart started taking B.C. off the rails, and the strip had to be moved to the religion section of the newspaper.
This was my thought as well.

Today's Dilbert was embarrassingly dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-14-2017, 09:14 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by CairoCarol View Post
(Mangosteen, you do know that "denier" is not a synonym for "hypocrite," right?)
And not even that, In the case of Al Gore his main point is that the well to do should at least be carbon neutral, that is like when rich people owning a big state with more people in it pay more for utilities or should be paying more to use green energy and when the change finally takes place, to pay more for the big proyects to sequester CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Likewise with many proponents of change that are not scientists, currently they pay more to reduce their carbon footprint. Their point is that we do not need to go back to the stone age as contrarians think proponents of change are about.

IMHO deniers out there do realize then that their idea of proponents of change as enemies of jobs, progress or modern civilization is poppycock, so they rely on red herrings like the one Mangosteen posted.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-14-2017 at 09:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-14-2017, 09:32 AM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Since his strip has grown increasingly repetitive, I shall henceforth stop reading it.
I'm sure Mr. Adams will be devastated.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-14-2017, 09:33 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
As for the comic, Scott Adams just certified himself as a champion of ignorance. Scientists do not ignore models that contradict their views, their views were changed by more than just models and models are constantly checked with reality.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2013...imple-science/
Quote:
One surprisingly common misconception about climate models is that they’re just exercises in curve-fitting. The global average temperature record is fed into the model, which matches that trend and spits out a simulation just like it. In this (mistaken) view, having a model that compares well with reality is a necessary outcome of the process. This doesn’t demonstrate that climate models can be trusted to usefully project future trends, but this line of thinking is mistaken for several reasons.

There’s obviously more to a climate model than a graph of global average temperature. Some parameterizations—those stand-ins for processes that occur at scales finer than a grid cell—are tuned to match observations. After all, they are attempts to describe a process in terms of its large-scale results. But successful parameterizations aren’t used as a gauge of how well the model is reproducing reality. “Obviously, since these factors are tuned for, they don't count as a model success. However, the model evaluations span a much wider and deeper set of observations, and when you do historical or paleoclimate simulations, none of the data you are interested in has been tuned for,” Schmidt told Ars.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-14-2017, 09:43 AM
running coach running coach is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 29,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
What happened to Dilbert's white shirt and upturned necktie? He looks like a hipster.

Business Dorky

Quote:
In the strip published October 13, 2014,[9] Dilbert announced to Dogbert that his company had a new dress code, "Business Dorky". Dilbert's white shirt and striped tie were replaced with a red polo shirt and a badge on a lanyard. Subsequent strips published Monday through Saturday show all of the company employees wearing this same outfit, with the polo shirts varying in color between blue, green, yellow, red, orange, and purple. The Sunday strips continued to show the characters in their original outfits, until November 9, 2014.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-14-2017, 11:10 AM
Amateur Barbarian Amateur Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by teela brown View Post
I'm reminded of when Johnny Hart started taking B.C. off the rails, and the strip had to be moved to the religion section of the newspaper.
BC and Wizard of Id are actually back from the abyss, and while not up for any awards soon, are both readable and often funny. I am not sure what happened, but I clearly remember the painful religious era.

Scott Adams seems to have been driven mad by one of Catbert's evil schemes.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-14-2017, 11:16 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amateur Barbarian View Post
BC and Wizard of Id are actually back from the abyss, and while not up for any awards soon, are both readable and often funny. I am not sure what happened, but I clearly remember the painful religious era.
Author Existence Failure happened.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ComicStrip/BC
Quote:
Initially, B.C. was a gag-a-day strip. After Hart became a born-again Christian in 1977, the strip gradually began adding more and more of Hart's religious and political beliefs until most strips were Christian-themed. Some newspapers refused to print certain strips that were deemed overly proselytizing. After Hart's death in 2007, it reverted to a mostly gag-a-day strip maintained by daughter Perri Hart and grandson Mason Mastroianni.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-14-2017, 11:17 AM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 42,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amateur Barbarian View Post
BC and Wizard of Id are actually back from the abyss, and while not up for any awards soon, are both readable and often funny. I am not sure what happened, but I clearly remember the painful religious era.
Johnny Hart died.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-14-2017, 12:03 PM
Quimby Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
The rise of Trump kind of made Scott Adams a little kooky. Actually it goes a little further back than that. He had posted some blogs that riled up the feminist blog movement and that was where he started to turn bitter. I honestly don't remember what he posted exactly or whether the outrage was warranted or not. But he started down the Men's rights path (a divorce probably didn't help in that regard).

During the election he convinced himself that Trump was was some kind of Svengali Genius he termed a Master Persuader. Admittedly he said early Trump would win but he also said he would win big and overwhelmingly which of course he did not.

It was around that time when he started to say Twitter was stealthily censoring him and the real kookiness began...

I used to like his writing, his blog and his non fiction but while I still find his comic funny (I named it one of my current favorites in the Comic Strip thread), I find I have to separate the art from the artist.

That said, this week's strip is bunk. The fact that the richest people and companies in the history of Humanity have convinced half the population that Climate Scientists are in it for the money and not the people who sell the oil for trillions of diollars makes me believe you really can buy anything.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-14-2017, 12:38 PM
Amateur Barbarian Amateur Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Author Existence Failure happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Johnny Hart died.
I know, in 2007, but the crappy, shopworn, religious-tinged non-humor persisted until the last year or two. Unless he had five years of backlog strips, something else changed in the creative team around 2015.

Last edited by Amateur Barbarian; 05-14-2017 at 12:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-14-2017, 12:39 PM
Amateur Barbarian Amateur Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
"Wizard of ID... 2015." What a weird phrase to type.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-14-2017, 01:06 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amateur Barbarian View Post
I know, in 2007, but the crappy, shopworn, religious-tinged non-humor persisted until the last year or two. Unless he had five years of backlog strips, something else changed in the creative team around 2015.
It would not surprise me, the creator of Hocus Focus, the comic that challenged you to find 6 differences between 2 panels, was so prolific that after his death it was found that he had about 2 years worth of unpublished comics left, and reruns continue in some newspapers still. (And one should notice how minimalistic BC was, like Hocus Focus was) And I would think that before dying someone that had a mission like that one would leave instructions to his sons about what the comic should do.

Eventually the controversy would tell his progeny to move on and ignore the old curmudgeon.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-14-2017, 08:35 PM
John DiFool John DiFool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quimby View Post
During the election he convinced himself that Trump was was some kind of Svengali Genius he termed a Master Persuader. Admittedly he said early Trump would win but he also said he would win big and overwhelmingly which of course he did not.
The deep irony there is that Trump makes the Pointy-Haired Boss look like Andrew Carnegie.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-14-2017, 09:25 PM
jtur88 jtur88 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
If a carton is funny I read it for amusement value and I'm entertained. Who cares about anything else?

Would you'd read a cartoon does not entertain you, just because you agree politically with the writer?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-14-2017, 09:41 PM
Annoying Buzz Annoying Buzz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
His blog back in the 90s was pretty funny, and he seemed like a fairly nice, down-to-earth guy. However, his main rallying cry at the time was the fight against stupidity, or in his words, "induhviduals": a group that appears to have since expanded beyond the makers of inane office policies to include everyone who doesn't agree with him. I think his current state is the result of 20 years of steadily convincing himself he's the smartest person in the room.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-15-2017, 01:14 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
I thought it was a stupid cartoon, but are people's opinions of climate change going to change due to the cartoon?

Keep investing in renewable energy until it becomes cost competitive with fossil fuels, and then the market will take over and make them ever-present. I know deeply conservative people in red counties within red states who have windmills on their farms because they make money off of it. Most think they know more about climate science than professors at MIT, but they still happily sign up to receive checks from the wind turbine companies.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-15-2017, 04:11 AM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
This is the cartoon, for those who haven't seen it. Yes, it's stupid. It goes along fine until the last three panels, where it goes off the rails into lunatic fiction. No, no one "ignores climate models that look wrong". On the contrary, important parameters like equilibrium climate sensitivity are partly determined by running ensembles of dozens of climate models that include outliers and then creating probability density functions like this, where the probability of any particular range of climate sensitivity values is defined by the area under the corresponding part of the curve.

As it turns out, models tend to have a sharp cutoff at the low end but some predict much higher sensitivities than others, hence the PDF is usually a highly positively skewed distribution. The data is corroborated with empirical evidence from paleoclimate records and projections from the modern instrumental record, and the most likely value is generally considered to be the median that divides the probability distribution from all the different models and observations into two equal areas -- which is greater than the mode (peak), and can be seen to be around 3°C -- an estimated most likely value for ECS that has remained unchanged for more than a decade despite increasingly numerous and more robust models.

That sort of ensemble averaging is pretty much the opposite of "ignoring models that look wrong". Nor do economic models figure in the physical science, or much of anything else as far as I know, and economic discussions occur only in the context of mitigation, as for example in the IPCC Working Group 3 assessments only.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-15-2017, 07:19 AM
jtur88 jtur88 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
I found the whole strip to be full of non-sequiturs, the moment I read it. . Dilbert asked if it was reasonable to draw a questionable econonmic model from what may have been valid science, a d the guy then accused Dilbert of challenging the scientific foundation, missing the point that Dilbert questioned the effective economics, rather than the causative science. I thought maybe that was the point of the strip, which was a headscratcher.

Last edited by jtur88; 05-15-2017 at 07:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-15-2017, 10:35 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Scott Adams definitely moved past merely 'eccentric' a while ago. He used to have a few odd beliefs and came down somewhere middle-right politically, but now he is a full on climate change denier and Trump apologist with some really strange beliefs that he doesn't even realize are unusual. If you read his blog (linked to on the Dilbert page) you'll see this.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-15-2017, 11:04 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I found the whole strip to be full of non-sequiturs, the moment I read it. . Dilbert asked if it was reasonable to draw a questionable econonmic model from what may have been valid science, a d the guy then accused Dilbert of challenging the scientific foundation, missing the point that Dilbert questioned the effective economics, rather than the causative science. I thought maybe that was the point of the strip, which was a headscratcher.
Even there, historically speaking, the economists that complain about the economical models are not in the mainstream, in other words, most of the time the economical contrarians are also coming from stink think tanks that tell our politicians to do nothing.

Many of the ones that do see a problem like William D. Nordhaus, who was a president of the American Economic Association, do see a big economical impact if nations decide to do nothing.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012...ics-are-wrong/

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-15-2017 at 11:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-15-2017, 11:50 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
The worst of the climate "deniers" are people like Al Gore, Michael Moore and Leonardo Dicaprio.

Al Gore owns several homes and his mansion in Tennessee uses as much fossil fuel (natural gas) in one month than most homes in the area use in a year. And don't buy his "credit offsets" excuse. Burning lots of fossil fuel means burning fossil fuel, period.
.
Not true.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/

Also you dont seem to know what "denier" means.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-15-2017, 12:21 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Scott Adams definitely moved past merely 'eccentric' a while ago. He used to have a few odd beliefs and came down somewhere middle-right politically, but now he is a full on climate change denier and Trump apologist with some really strange beliefs that he doesn't even realize are unusual. If you read his blog (linked to on the Dilbert page) you'll see this.
I did read some of his blog, which I didn't want to link to because it was so maddeningly stupid. It certainly puts to rest any possible charitable interpretations of what this cartoon is supposed to mean -- the guy is a flat-out climate change denier, as I said upthread. I'm sure it's no coincidence that he drew the "climate scientist" to look uncannily like Michael Mann, the climatologist who created the first large-scale temperature reconstructions that showed the dramatic "hockey stick" shape of modern-era temperature trends.

Mann was of course vilified by the deniers because the graph was indeed dramatic, and they attacked his statistical methods and some of the temperature proxies he used. Yet independent analysis showed that the temperature curve looked much the same with or without the application of statistical techniques he used like principal component analysis and with or without the disputed proxies. And it looked much the same for the following simple reason: the world really is dramatically warming. The final irony is that Mann is primarily known for his outstanding empirical work in paleoclimatology; his expertise is reconstructing how the climate progressed over the past thousand years and beyond. In attacking Mann, the deniers have descended from attacking theoretical projections to attacking empirical evidence, not to mention that they've been making many of the attacks personal, including death threats.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-15-2017, 12:42 PM
Tranquilis Tranquilis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
I read about 1/5 of God's Debris... Junk, and it stunk. His comics remain entertianing. Usually. But not so much as before as the social / technological conditions that made them funny have largely faded.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-15-2017, 12:46 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
The current robot-themed strips are pretty pointless, a far cry from the biting satire of business stupidities that he used to write about. He's either running out of material or, as already suggested, is getting senile.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-15-2017, 01:24 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
This is the cartoon, for those who haven't seen it.
It was helpful to see the actual strip. I have no idea what Adams thinks about climate change. Just looking at the strip it could possibly be about the pointy haired guy's ability to pick a credible climate scientist. The overall message doesn't seem quite like that, nor do I care what economic models have to say about climate, but I can see that it's a controversial way of making whatever his point is. Comic strips aren't a great source of scientific information, unfortunately it might be the only source that some people who incredibly are in great positions of power may rely on.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-15-2017, 02:00 PM
Ají de Gallina Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
I don't see how that specific strip makes him a full-blown denier.
In the third panel Dilbert asks "How do scientists know that?" which is a very good question.
In the sixth there's a dig to the use of models with "we ignore the ones that look wrong to us"
In the seventh there's a good (between-the-lines) question about how good economic models are for climate which is clearly stated in the eighth.

In order to be a "full-blown denier" you need to deny either that the temperature is increasing (which Dilbert doesn't) or that humans have no part in the rise (whic, again, he doesn't).
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-15-2017, 02:55 PM
Tranquilis Tranquilis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It was helpful to see the actual strip. I have no idea what Adams thinks about climate change. Just looking at the strip it could possibly be about the pointy haired guy's ability to pick a credible climate scientist.
Agreed, generally.

If he'd picked, say, economics or poli-sci to mock like that, I don't think anyone would've noticed.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-15-2017, 04:08 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It was helpful to see the actual strip. I have no idea what Adams thinks about climate change. Just looking at the strip it could possibly be about the pointy haired guy's ability to pick a credible climate scientist. The overall message doesn't seem quite like that, ...
But, again, I've put myself through the ordeal of reading his asinine blogs ("I read 'em so you don't have to!") which makes it clear that he's a full-blown denier, and makes the context of the cartoon clear. The worst possibly interpretation one could put on it -- that climate models are no good because the ones that don't agree with preconceived "beliefs" about AGW are just ignored, and the even crazier one that climate science is somehow based on discredited economic models -- turns out to be the interpretation he is trying to convey, sadly. I refuse on principle to link to them to make them more accessible or increase their Google ranking.

And I presume you mean "the pointy haired boss's inability to pick a credible climate scientist". Since the PHB is invariably and consistently stupid and always does exactly the wrong thing, it's telling that Adams portrays him as the one who brought in the climate scientist, and it's also telling that Adams made him look exactly like Michael Mann, who is a renowned and highly respected climatologist, but the subject of scorn among deniers because his research (the reconstruction of lengthy temperature chronologies) is easily understood by the public and very impactful, which has made him quite famous in the popular culture.

I know it's kind of silly to be microanalyzing a cartoon, but the annoying thing is what Scott Adams actually believes and is widely trying to publicize. One can only hope that it backfires as people associate it with his general eccentricities or senility or whatever the hell is afflicting him.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-15-2017, 06:22 PM
standingwave standingwave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It was helpful to see the actual strip. I have no idea what Adams thinks about climate change. Just looking at the strip it could possibly be about the pointy haired guy's ability to pick a credible climate scientist. The overall message doesn't seem quite like that, nor do I care what economic models have to say about climate, but I can see that it's a controversial way of making whatever his point is. Comic strips aren't a great source of scientific information, unfortunately it might be the only source that some people who incredibly are in great positions of power may rely on.
PZ Myers, a well know science blogger (and biology professor) breaks down the strip frame by frame....

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...nny-hart-road/

Last edited by standingwave; 05-15-2017 at 06:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-15-2017, 09:15 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Scott Adams embarks on the Johnny Hart road
Yep, PZ Myers gets it.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-16-2017, 07:54 AM
Malleus, Incus, Stapes! Malleus, Incus, Stapes! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
I read an author's comment in one of the Dilbert books about how he thinks evolution is going to be disproved in our lifetimes. I raised an eyebrow when I read that, but at the time I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as a guy with one kooky belief.

Now, I see a pattern.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-16-2017, 11:02 AM
Pleonast Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 6,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
The current robot-themed strips are pretty pointless, a far cry from the biting satire of business stupidities that he used to write about. He's either running out of material or, as already suggested, is getting senile.
I enjoy the recent robot story line. They're funny takes about what it means to be sapient.

I read his comics and ignore his rants. He's been good about keeping his weird views out of the comics. Until the climate-denier comic, when he jumped the shark.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-16-2017, 07:48 PM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 10,756
I don't care what anyone else thinks on the subject. It was the snark about throwing away models that don't conform to their theories that convinced me he is a full-fledged denier. He is asserting that the science is bunk. I know there are "scientists" (the scare quotes indicates what I think of them) who might do that, but he is impugning the whole profession of climate students. Also tieing it up with economic models is highly misleading. But I don't have to an economist to know that when Mar-a-Lago is under water, some is going to face a huge loss (and will crying to the government to bail him out).
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-17-2017, 11:31 AM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,332
I thought I remembered Scott Adams being pretty hard left about 15 years ago. With some of the associated stereotypes, including an advocacy of vegetarianism (hence the abominable Dilberito), though to be fair it was for health and not ethical reasons. I can't remember why I had such an impression back then, it was a long time ago.

I also remember in the most recent presidential election he endorsed Hillary before switching sides and endorsing Trump.

Maybe he's not really left or right, just crazy.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-17-2017, 01:26 PM
Quimby Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post

I also remember in the most recent presidential election he endorsed Hillary before switching sides and endorsing Trump.

Maybe he's not really left or right, just crazy.
His endorsement of Hilary was sarcastic. He would always add he was endorsing her "for his own personal safety" because Hillary supporters were thugs that would hurt him if he didn't.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-17-2017, 02:24 PM
Tranquilis Tranquilis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
I also remember in the most recent presidential election he endorsed Hillary before switching sides and endorsing Trump.
About 18 months (IIRC) before the election, he did a rather credible analysis of how and why Trump was going to win, if he faced Hilary. He was fairly accurate.

Quote:
...just crazy.
Yup. Also, rather far right.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-17-2017, 02:40 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
I thought I remembered Scott Adams being pretty hard left about 15 years ago. With some of the associated stereotypes, including an advocacy of vegetarianism
Hitler was a vegetarian for health reasons...
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.