The climate change scientist in the Adams Dilbert cartoon (see below) admits that he ignores models that "look wrong" and then runs the acceptable data through long-term economic projections that are always incorrect. When the Dilbert character questions this approach, he is deemed a climate denier.
The cartoon "sums up pretty much everything the layman needs to know about the state of climate 'science' and how it abuses the public trust," Breitbart London concluded.
Man-made climate change advocates insist that the science behind it is settled, as if science is something that can be forever locked down. However, as Natural News founder Mike Adams previously revealed, the claim that 97 percent of scientists agree on man-made climate change is a bunch of hot air. (RELATED: Read more about global warming propaganda at ClimateScienceNews.com).
Scott Adams, a non-scientist who earned an MBA from UC-Berkeley, is not your typical climate change skeptic, however. He seems to accept climate change, but wants its supporters to use solid data. In a lengthy blog post a few months ago that that explored similar themes as with the cartoon, Adams pondered why the climate scientists can't seem to put together a sound argument for global warming, while those who argue against man-made climate change always seem to have a good point to make.
Adams wrote in part:
1. Stop telling me the “models” (plural) are good. If you told me one specific model was good, that might sound convincing. But if climate scientists have multiple models, and they all point in the same general direction, something sounds fishy. If climate science is relatively “settled,” wouldn’t we all use the same models and assumptions? And why can’t science tell me which one of the different models is the good one, so we can ignore the less-good ones? What’s up with that?
2. Stop telling me the climate models are excellent at hindcasting, meaning they work when you look at history. That is also true of financial models, and we know financial models can NOT predict the future...
Among other things, Adams wants climate scientists to reveal the percentage of global warming caused by humans, the absence of which suggests that the omission is intentional. He also thinks a cost-benefit approach would help. "The world is full of risks that might happen. We don’t treat all of them as real... 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?"
Another aspect of Adams' personal beliefs that doesn't sit well with his liberal following is the fact that he supports Donald Trump. Although he temporarily hopped off the Trump Train during the Access Hollywood scandal, Scott Adams long predicted that “master persuader” Donald Trump would win the 2016 presidential election in a landslide, which proved accurate at least insofar as the Electoral College was concerned. And if you take away the massive voter fraud in corrupt states like California, who knows, Trump might have won the popular vote as well.
A trained hypnotist, Scott Adams regularly talks about President Trump and persuasion techniques, among other issues, on his blog and through his daily Periscope broadcasts. During the presidential primary season, Adams praised Trump not on the issues but for operating like a 3-D chess master (while everyone else, in his opinion, was playing at best 2-D) who is also a master of negotiation, persuasion, and of the “linguistic kill shot.” An example of the latter was Trump's memorable labeling of rival Jeb Bush as low energy.
With that in mind, Adams lauded Trump for describing ISIS terrorists as "evil losers" in the aftermath of the horrific Manchester, U.K., concert attack. "This is – literally – weapons-grade persuasion from the most powerful Master Persuader of our time. As I have taught you in this blog, President Trump’s clever nicknames for people are not random. They are deeply engineered for visual impact and future confirmation bias."
On a somewhat unrelated note, in yet another example of climate change hysteria, two academics hoaxed a peer-reviewed social science journal into publishing a paper purposely written with lofty, nonsensical gibberish, feminist buzzwords, and citing fake sources that claimed that the “conceptual penis” drives climate change and that hypermasculinity is irreparably damaging the global ecosystem. They described their paper as "academically worthless nonsense."
Could it be examples like this that have caused Adams to take the stand he did? Isn't it time for some real science on climate change? Adams think so.