So is qanon's - it doesn't mean Adams isn't nuts.
If you want to see what someone who is credibly trying to predict events look at the work of Nate Silver or Nassim Taleb. When you obsess over one prediction by person most known for comedy and questionable personal statements, it's neither difficult nor inappropriate to put them in the clown category.
If Adams himself wants to build his reputation as a prognosticator, he can easily create a publicly-verifiable record of them and any questions of his ability will answer itself in short order. That he has not (to the best of my knowledge) done so makes him look like a huckster.
It's the fact that he has spent 30 years writing Dilbert, which means he has followed the pulse of general office-culture, coupled with the fact that he is a train hypnotist, so he knows how people think.
Basically, he will often give an interesting take on some current event that gives you a perspective on the situation that you hadn't considered.
Like NN Taleb and Nate Silver, once you've groked their general schtick (long tails, Bayesian probability) there isn't a whole lot new they have to offer. It's worth checking back in on them from time to time, but you're unlikely to be blown away by anything you see.
Mike Cernovich is a lot more interesting to follow on Twitter than Scott Adams. Adams is basically a pundit at this point. Cernovich is more of a journalist, so he follows and retweets breaking news that you're likely to hear about in the upcoming news cycles.
The thing I like to keep in mind is that its important to follow people you don't always agree with, because otherwise you are missing out on a lot of perspectives and don't have as good a view of the current political landscape.
Admitting to something when there's prevailing evidence against you isn't nuts either.
Almost all HNers have no clue what it's like to have people coming together in great numbers to talk bad about you (to say nothing of whether you "deserve" it).
The guy can't even get away with marrying a younger consenting adult woman without being burned at the stake.
Sockpuppet accounts for trolling used to be common on several niche forums on the internet (which is how this practice got a name), especially this many years ago. I could certainly see how someone could be confused about how sockpuppeting was or was not acceptable behavior on a specific forum. He might have thought (but I’m speculating here) that he was engaging with (i.e. trolling) the forum within the (semi-)established norm of behavior for that forum.
Is that all the rope with which you would have him hanged? That stump is so short that you couldn’t even tie a knot with it.
If Adams only had kept his observations about Trump to himself, none of this would be an issue. But no, now everybody’s gotta find those crucial six lines somewhere in all the things he’s ever written, and whenever someone mentions anything he’s ever said, especially if it’s not about Trump or about politics in any way, it must be overwhelmed with random lists of accusations, all of which are false, misleading, or ancient and irrelevant, or all three. Merely to thoroughly discredit anyone even remotely associated with Trump.
To paraphrase something Scott Adams said about Mike Cernovich, another "alt-right lunatic":
"You might not like his style, but he sure is right a lot"
I don't agree with everything I hear on NPR. I don't agree with everything I hear in the alt-right twittersphere.
But the two do seem to pair nicely in terms of getting a feel of the current national pulse.