‘Dilbert’ Comically Puts Climate Theorists On Defense

This ‘Dilbert’ comic strip put out this week pokes fun at Climate Theory with brilliant brevity.

Thank you, Dilbert! I mean, we will take what we can get as far as finding someone who could be considered even remotely influential (even a cartoonist) speaking the sense completely lost on so many, much to the dismay of skeptics everywhere. 

A ‘Dilbert’ cartoon strip, unfortunately, will obviously do nothing to instill a willingness, for those suffering from climate hysteria, to practice a modicum of critical thought in climate theory’s regard (or any regard). But, this little jab at the impenetrable juggernaut that is the “accepted science” perpetuated by climate hysterics offers some satisfaction to the frustrated and silenced skeptics of the world. Michael Mann, of Hockey Stick Theory Fame himself, has sweetened it even more by continuing to tweet raving, delirious responses at this minuscule, yet deserved critique of he and his closest peers’ “scientific breakthrough”. 

Here’s a sampling of Michael Mann and others’ indicative, overly defensive responses to a cartoon strip. Thou doth protest too much, Mr. Mann:

Scott Adams (“Dilbert”) is an equal-opportunity science denier: Evolution https://t.co/Uz4P1nZvMJ & #ClimateChange https://t.co/v4hzBqbThC

— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) May 15, 2017

Honored to be featured (?) in Scott Adams (“Dilbert”) expression of climate ignorance. Via @Pharyngula: https://t.co/v4hzBqbThC

— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) May 14, 2017

A proper editing of @Dilbert_Daily‘s new climate denial cartoon, by Russell Seitz of #VVattsUpWithThat: https://t.co/DJNXfFcMC8 pic.twitter.com/4aMqk6k7LS

— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) May 14, 2017


Michael Mann then spent the next few days retweeting his alarmist foot soldiers who tried to provide some additional cover by, unsurprisingly, dismissing ‘Dilbert’s’, Scott Adams, as a “climate denier”; falsely alluding that skepticism is “anti-science”. Take a look: 


Adams tried out climate denial first in his blog some weeks ago and I tried to answer him thus: https://t.co/53P7dz6YJh https://t.co/wEfTj7FUjf

— Christopher Schrader (@cschrader_eu) May 15, 2017
@Dilbert_ING @MichaelEMannSame. I liked Dilbert last time I saw one, which was maybe 15 years ago. Now that I know he’s a climate denier, I’ll “read” it even less.

— Brian (@bridoc) May 15, 2017

Sigh… I used to find #Dilbert intermittently amusing, but today’s strip is just stupid. https://t.co/mlWe7bMS0R

— Ingeniero Dilbert (@Dilbert_ING) May 15, 2017

Good lord. I knew that I didn’t like Dilbert, but I didn’t realize how much. https://t.co/IIU8JPZUid

— Long Haired Freak (@Tweetmare) May 15, 2017

What is comical is deniers who say “we’re just asking questions” then proceed to make claims w/o evidence, e.g. “you manipulate data!” https://t.co/jYxVV22QiY

— Mark Boslough (@MarkBoslough) May 15, 2017

Indeed, a misleading and dishonest cartoon! But SA has been doing this for years, ignore him. https://t.co/WLA3QlD26h

— Greg Laden (@gregladen) May 16, 2017

#Dilbert goes full #climate denial in latest strip. Some fans of cartoonist @ScottAdamsSays not happy to say the least. @Dilbert_Daily pic.twitter.com/W48Hw5Xs2S

— Daily Climate (@TheDailyClimate) May 15, 2017

A trump cult member, Adams jumped the shark here. Not just wrong, preachy is not funny. #climate https://t.co/Fh5tJoj9ob

— Peter Louwe (@peterlouwe) May 15, 2017


These climate theorists and their alarmist sycophants should be grateful, for now, that they’re debating themselves over a comic strip, rather than being held to the standards of science where skepticism, scrutiny, and Scientific Method have been historically regarded as imperatives. 

Climate Theory is one singular area of science where scientific dissent and debate, a typically crucial aspect of proving scientific theory, has been and continues to be ignored and/or suppressed; peer review has been relegated solely to the top echelon of climate science; as well as replicated findings. In fact, to hell with the Scientific Method entirely with regards to one single scientific theory.

This little cartoon sums up the (non)debate quite well in a single comic strip. Well done, Dilbert…

Of course, we’re all aware of the overwhelming evidence of climate change, but not enough, or the kind of evidence that by any means proves the “accepted” climate theory. We just have to take the word of a select group of scientists, having already been exposed for ignoring or skewing data not in agreement with their preconceived conclusions. The very opposite of “science” has prevailed in the climate “debate”.


There has been absolutely no regard for the importance of scientific debate when applied to Climate Theory and Climate Theory alone. Skeptics are roundly condemned for questioning the forced absence of the scrutiny typically demanded by science; while unqualified and incompetent celebrities, musicians, you name it, may always count on the welcoming podium put out by the mainstream media; and, of course, the multitudes of well-meaning (perhaps), yet thoughtless liberal foot soldiers.

Gloria Steinem never disappoints. She and ‘Cosmopolitan’ Magazine, last week provided an ideal example of mainstream media lending credence to maniacal theories casually asserted by people with absolutely zero clue. Her lunacy is endearing… She recently and unscientifically arrived at a thoughtful conclusion as to where to place the blame for Climate Change: The Patriarchy. Why the hell not? (This one’s almost as great as the widely circulated, unchallenged theory that climate change is responsible for the Syrian Civil War; as opposed to murderous barbarians).

“Are you kidding me? Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have. That’s the fundamental cause of climate change…”

Then, she randomly/hilariously/unnecessarily adds:

“Even if the Vatican doesn’t tell us that”.

I tell you this lady leaves me breathless.

So, essentially we need to start frantically killing babies immediately in order to save the earth. Or, as hilariously interpreted by Jim Treacher at DailyCaller, “We have to kill the children, or else we won’t have any sort of planet to leave to the… children. Wait…”

And, yes, her claim has gotten plenty of coverage from the mainstream media who’ve been predictably remiss in distancing themselves from her insanity. It’s amazing that someone like her has no problems in the media espousing such nonsense; but, the people who simply desire climate science to be conducted with scientific integrity, with no exceptions to adherence to Scientific Method, are wrongly dismissed as “science deniers”.

American citizens have been intentionally misled and deprived of  an abundance of credible scientific research which contradicts commonly accepted man-made Climate Theory.  The Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Changis one of countless credible, unbiased, unaffiliated groups staffed by independent scientific experts and scholars, whose mission is to uphold scientific methodology in its climate research where the U.N. IPCC panel has failed.

Thousands of prominent scientists, researchers, and scholars around the world have actively voiced dissent ignored and suppressed by the the powers that be engaged in a battle for the minds of the global citizenry. The list of scholars, academics, U.N. IPCC defectors, and scientific experts is seemingly without end; contrary to what most Americans believe, many whose worship of man-made Climate Change is akin to religious zealotry. 

The NIPCC routinely criticizes the United Nations panel, accusing them of “departing from proper scientific methodology.”

Global climate models produce meaningful results only if we assume we already know perfectly how the global climate works, and most climate scientists say we do not (Bray and von Storch, 2010). Moreover, it is widely recognized that climate models are not designed to produce predictions of future climate but rather what-if projections of many alternative possible futures (Trenberth, 2009). Postulates, commonly defined as “something suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief,” can stimulate relevant observations or experiments but more often are merely assertions that are difficult or impossible to test (Kahneman, 2011). Observations in science are useful primarily to falsify hypotheses and cannot prove one is correct (Popper, 1965, p. vii).

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: Believing CO2 controls the climate ‘is pretty close to believing in magic:

“Doubling COinvolves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, highly respected among the scientific community and a former member of the U.N. IPCC defected from climate alarmists; in spite of  “enormous group pressure from warmists” which resulted in concern for his own health and safety. He claims that CO2”s ‘heating effect is logarithmic: the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase. He goes on stating, ‘Climate change has become extremely politicized. The issue is so complex that one can not ask the people to be convinced that the whole economic system must be changed just because you have done some computer simulations.” 

Climate Science is FAR from settled science; of this much we can be certain. The evidence of the intentional, unprecedented actions taken to suppress and silence skeptics, breaches of scientific protocol, and countless other ethical questions (and the media’s refusal to enable debate or dissent of any kind made available to the masses) puts that assertion to shame.

In that case, there should be no exceptions to making the climate models and data used to formulate the “accepted” man-made Climate Theory transparent to the scientific community and plebeians alike – if for nothing else, simply for the sake of scientific principles established and adhered to since the Renaissance. Hell, many would likely settle for adherence to the principles of the Socratic Method developed 2500 years ago. Until that day arrives, climate skeptics deserve more than insults, ridicule, and egregious attempts made to silence them. 





Great Britain House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: Various experts detailing egregious breaches of scientific principle made by climate theorists – Click Here

Mathematicians, Legendary Physicist, IPCC Expert Throw Wrenches Into UN Climate Summit

California Joins The Effort to Persecute and Suppress Climate Skeptics

Cato Institute – ‘Do Scientists Suppress Uncertainty in the Climate Change Debate?’

The Climate Depot


Click here to follow Hans on Twitter

Hans Comprix is a marine veteran of the Global War on Terror & conservative writer. He’s a contributor for Intellectual Conservative, having previously contributed to ‘American Thinker’ and ‘Now its Dark’ magazine. Email hans.comprix@com for comments, questions, or hate mail. 

Comments are closed.