5 ms·

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wrote an interesting piece on this topic. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-cha

by boona 10y ago

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wrote an interesting piece on this topic. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...

jstimpfle 10y ago
Thank you, very interesting!
intended 10y ago
He starts out by saying that "he totally believes the scientific consensus" And then begins to undermine it by effectively saying "well, so what? If there is a problem with global warming, we will just do something to scrub the air clean." While also dumping a laundry list of canards and debunked arguments about climate deniers. For example: > 1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming. Really?? Climate change? Changing the name is a big deal? And that to after politicians and their media managers helped force that change ? And inherent in this statement is a full assault and repudiation of science and scientifists. If science updates their models and the conclusions stay the same, then it improves confidence. That science. What Adams ends up implying is that liars cheat and fudge their data, and that's when their results stay the same. HMMMM, suspicious. > 3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models. Shocking ply this is the case with many mathematical and statistical models. You expect trained and expert scientists to do this and do it well. That's the whole damn point. > 4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career. Again, the Fox News-esque assassination of science and scientists continue. The reason people follow the consensus is becusse they are afraid. 5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest. .... To top it off, he concludes with "so I hold both positions. If it turns out it was a disaster, i get to say i believes science. If it's not a disaster I get to say I told you so ". This is not logic, this is mood manipulation.
freen 10y ago
I don't always science, but when I do, I prefer to trust cartoonists.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Scott Adams doesn't believe in fossils and thinks that wishing can makes things true. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams It's hardly surprising therefore that he has issues with Climate Science and supports Trump.
- jstimpfle 10y ago
  Thanks - very good to know. Puts things in relation for me (I'm not deeply invested in climate science)

by boona 10y ago

jstimpfle 10y ago

Thank you, very interesting!

intended 10y ago

He starts out by saying that "he totally believes the scientific consensus" And then begins to undermine it by effectively saying "well, so what? If there is a problem with global warming, we will just do something to scrub the air clean." While also dumping a laundry list of canards and debunked arguments about climate deniers. For example: > 1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming. Really?? Climate change? Changing the name is a big deal? And that to after politicians and their media managers helped force that change ? And inherent in this statement is a full assault and repudiation of science and scientifists. If science updates their models and the conclusions stay the same, then it improves confidence. That science. What Adams ends up implying is that liars cheat and fudge their data, and that's when their results stay the same. HMMMM, suspicious. > 3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models. Shocking ply this is the case with many mathematical and statistical models. You expect trained and expert scientists to do this and do it well. That's the whole damn point. > 4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career. Again, the Fox News-esque assassination of science and scientists continue. The reason people follow the consensus is becusse they are afraid. 5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest. .... To top it off, he concludes with "so I hold both positions. If it turns out it was a disaster, i get to say i believes science. If it's not a disaster I get to say I told you so ". This is not logic, this is mood manipulation.

freen 10y ago

I don't always science, but when I do, I prefer to trust cartoonists.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

Scott Adams doesn't believe in fossils and thinks that wishing can makes things true. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams It's hardly surprising therefore that he has issues with Climate Science and supports Trump.

jstimpfle 10y ago
Thanks - very good to know. Puts things in relation for me (I'm not deeply invested in climate science)