Dilbert Creator Scott Adams on Climate: "Hockey Stick is a Symbol of Lying"


Dilbert creator Scott Adams sees the climate change "hockey stick" for what it is, a pack of lies.

Scott Adams Will Save the World

Adams has an excellent video on climate change.

He says that hockey stick graphs are "the most famous symbol of lying in the world".

Yet, if you think the video is an attack on science you are mistaken.

The video is not really about climate change at all. It's about persuasion and what it takes to get people to change their minds.

Both Sides Lying

Adams thinks, as do I, that both sides may be lying. Certainly, both sides overstate their case. The question is to what degree, and about what.

In the video, Adams states he genuinely is unconvinced about climate change science. So am I, even though it may not seem like like it.

What Does a Comic Writer Know?

So, what does Adams know about climate?

The same as me, perhaps a bit more or perhaps less, which is to say, not much, at least compared to climatologists. But I can smell lies. So can Adams.

Art of Persuasion

Adams knows a lot about persuasion. The Dilbert comic strip itself is about persuasion. Adams is a master of persuasion.

Adams points out that the tactics used to persuade the young and naive are not the same tactics that are needed to persuade older businessmen.

When 97% of people agree on something that is genuinely unknown or debatable, I am inclined to take the other side, as is Adams.

He gives many examples of strong agreement. Some of them are humorous.

In the economic world we see the same thing. Fed governors believe they know something for sure, but their models blow sky high all the time.

Climate Change Religion

Climate change has become a religion. That makes persuasion all the harder.

Adams asks an interesting question: What would it take to get you to change your mind?

What the Hell is NASA Hiding?

I know that I changed a few people's minds based on emails following my post Climate Change Religion and Related Cover-Ups: What the Hell Is NASA Hiding?

Adams didn't discuss data suppression but that is clearly another red flag.

Hockey Stick

For excellent commentary on the above comic strip, please see the Watts Up With That article ‘Mikes Nature Trick’ Revisited- @ScottAdamsSays edition.

My problem with WUWT and many other deniers is the site tends to cherry pick things out of articles, sometimes a bit out of context. But both sides do that.

Many confuse weather (what's happening now), with climate change that happens of millions of years.

Six Red Flags

Adams mentioned three red flags on climate change. I have at least three more to add.

  1. Hockey Stick Graph
  2. Prediction Models
  3. 97% agreement
  4. Suppressing or Hiding Data
  5. Changing the Data or the Data Sources
  6. Constantly changing the model to explain what's happening

Climate change scientists have been caught red-handed lying and manipulating data.

When data is not to their liking, the climatologists find another source, suppress the information, or change their model such that the model now predicts what just happened.

If you fail to spot these things, then you simply are not paying attention.

These things do not make the scientists wrong, but it does make them liars.

Play the Video

Please play Adam's excellent video start to finish. It will be 18 minutes well spent no matter what your climate position happens to be.

Once again, the video is not at all about climate change, it is really about persuasion and persuasion techniques.

New Green Deal

AOC wants to spend $100 trillion or so on a "New Green Deal"

I am open to changing my mind about climate. Most aren't.

But I have another angle that Adam's failed to mention.

The notion that politicians will do anything sensible about the problem seems ridiculous.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (73)
No. 1-15

It used to be called global warming and then 1998 was really hot and was warmer than the next 18 years, so they renamed it climate change. And now, every time there's bad weather, it's blamed on climate change. The theory has switched to more weather extremes. Something vague that can't be quantified. It can never be proven right or wrong. What kind of science is that?

There are a lot of places on earth, so it's almost always guaranteed there will be bad weather somewhere. We had the mildest tornado season ever in 2018 and it's never mentioned.

I think the earth is slowly warming and rising CO2 levels are contributing, but stating with certainty the results of it is asinine.

Also, the 97% statistic is very misleading. Google it to find out why.


The politics are the government needs another stream of income and now they have this thought that they can tax to help with climate change or appropriate dollars where they will be used so beneficially for us all. This is just like the the war on terrorism. This war will never be over there will always be terrorists so they will always need money and the right to look at everything so as to protect us against this terrible threat. It's the never ending war to distract us from their inability to get the "job done" in so many other areas. The day we eliminate terrorism will be the day it begins there have always been terrorists and they will always be. The prefect war! Climate change is the perfect cause never ending!


I have a question for climate change deniers: Where did all that carbon that got buried in the ground in the form of oil come from during the Jurassic Period?


How can anyone lose with 'climate change'?

If it gets hotter, we told you so.

If it gets colder, we told you so.

If nothing happens, it is because of the changes we made.

As for climate is what happens over millions of years? That's wrong. Written history recounts numerous occasions were climate changed over the period of mere centuries, witness the Vikings in Greenland.


While I think Scott Adams is an intelligent and sincere man, I would not put all of my eggs in one basket. While Tony Heller may be a prominent critic of global whatever, I would not be totally persuaded by any such debate.

In regards to Generation 4 nuclear power, it is still pretty much experimental and at least a decade for real world implementation. That all depends on whether it pans out as feasible. That's a big 'IF' at this point.

I would direct anyone to a very quantitative piece written in 2011 by Lisa Zyga on Phys.org. It is titled "Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs" Sadly, it is very persuasive with numbers. Pesky numbers.