Scott Adams message to our frightened children

We got this

Compared to past threats to humanity, climate change is minor league.

26 thoughts on “Scott Adams message to our frightened children

  1. Yes well I, for one, have always classified comedians, especially cartoonists and satirists, as society’s critical thinkers, who are capable of taking complex scientific issues and subjects, and reducing them to a quick 4-frame, easily digested, porridge of gaseous anecdotal misinformation that produces laugh-like farts.

    Sorry Doc, but when you fall upon such learned men of science as Scott Adams for your subject matter’re really dragging anchor. Now, find out what Douglas Adams had to say on the issue and we can have a debate.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. While Adams is well informed on many issues, he is not a climate expert, but he is an expert on persuasion. And that is what this is post is really about. I regard the mass terror that has been inflicted on young people to be the worst instance of mass child abuse since the Children’s Crusade.

      Children should not be terrorized or used as pawns for political issues.


      1. If Scott Adams were, like Dana with “Two Years before the Mast” and the “Seaman’s Rights Act of 1850-something-or-other”, to propose a “White Collar Defense Contractor’s Rights of 2020”, I would stand four-square behind him because his work is self-admittedly linked directly to 8 of the top defense companies and my own experiences while working for two of such.

        But children are not the pawns of climate change and the issues of the science behind it, they are its heirs, just as you and your ilk have warned and frightened them of their inheritance of national debt — of course debt, while choking, is merely of the figurative variety.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Sorry, Doc. Those kids went on their own with the support of GC advocates. They stepped up when they became affected by the situation directly. To say they were exploited for their views is disingenuous.


    1. Please do show us where “the World’s Climate Scientists” hove told us we have 12 years before the world is doomed, or that we face an existential threat at all.

      You can’t. Even the alarmist IPCC Interim Report doesn’t say that.

      Politicians and ‘Journalists’ have taken what scientists actually said and have run with it to create a political movement. See the earlier post here to avoid repetition

      If you really believe the alarmists are sincere, why are they rejecting nuclear power and insisting on wind and solar? Follow the money.


      1. “Please do show us where “the World’s Climate Scientists” hove told us we have 12 years before the world is doomed, or that we face an existential threat at all.”

        That’s suspiciously specific so I’ll assume there probably isn’t a document that says the word “doomed” in relation to the 2030 CO2 reduction goal. What scientists have “actually said” is that we need to control our emissions or life is going to become more terrible for many people. Probably not so much for us, living comfortably here in the US, but for island nations and people already dealing with food insecurity. The incidence and severity of droughts, wildfires, tropical storms, etc. have already started increasing.

        And you’re suggesting this is all some elaborate conspiracy to sell a few solar panels? The Climate Change Cabal manufactured a crisis and wants to restructure the global economy because . . . they’re invested in wind and solar? That seems a bit far-fetched to me. Then again, maybe I just need a condescending talking-to from a retired cartoonist.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. “The incidence and severity of droughts, wildfires, tropical storms, etc. have already started increasing.”


          No they aren’t.

          Only in models, there is no observed increase in overall drought or any other form of extreme weather.

          Not really trying to put you on the spot, but there are too many people who just ‘know’ stuff from media reports that simply isn’t supported by actual science.


          1. Well, as the NOAA Study the article was based on is very technical and 108 pages long, I thought you might prefer a summary, but here is the NOAA study.

            Click to access BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf

            From the summary (p90)

            . “A failure to find anthropo-genic signals for several events examined in this report does not prove anthropogenic climate change had no role to play.Rather, an anthropogenic contribution to these events that is distinguishable from natural climate variability could not be detected by these analyses. ”

            In short, after analyzing a great number of extreme weather events, no connection to climate change could be demonstrated.

            Hurricane Harvey was a freak event, in that it stalled partly over land and partly over warm water for a protracted period. That is weather, not climate.


      2. “12 years”?

        I must have missed something. Regardless, I agree that the serious issue of global warming is being overstated as to timing and probability by politicians and the media.

        However, the opposite (Chinese hoax) being pushed by the current Administration is potentially worse.

        And while the increased use of nuclear energy has its drawbacks, doing so may be necessary to avoid the 8.5 (or 6, or even 4.5) pathway(s).

        Liked by 2 people

        1. The IPCC 2018 interim report said that we had to reduce CO2 by 50% by 2030 in order to prevent a greater than 1.5C increase above 1850.

          Politicians interpreted that as the end of the world and the news media ran with it as us having 12 years before apocalypse.

          We are already 1C above 1850, so do you really think 0.5C more is an existential threat?


  2. “I’ve come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

    1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
    2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
    3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things."  —  Douglas Adams

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It applies to Climate as well. People just assume that the climate of their youth is normal and that any change is bad.

      But consider the lifespan of Thomas Jefferson. As a farmer and naturalist, he kept careful records of fruit tree blossoming over many years and was well aware of the warming of the climate compared to his youth.

      But the climate of his youth was in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and there was great hardship associated with it.

      It has been warmer than now before, warmer than the projected warming we have now.

      The last interglacial was was a full 8C (14F) warmer than today. It was 4 to 6C warmer earlier in this interglacial in the Holocene optimum. Nothing really bad happened.

      A world another 2C above today(3C above preindustrial) would be different, but no more than today is from Jefferson’s youth, and not necessarily bad. (Note that 2C above today is an outside projection, 1C is far more likely the peak for this cycle.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s