A couple of weeks ago Scott Adams (the writer of Dilbert) wrote something I wish I’d written myself: a very logical and sensible summary of the global warming debate. Clearly I think we have to make thoughtful choices about the impact we have on the environment; that said, I don’t believe the most extreme doomsday scenarios which all the true believers are supposed to support. Here’s how Adams puts it:
“The people predicting likely doom because of global warming have not made their case. Humans are incredibly adaptive. And technological breakthroughs happen in steps, not predictable straight lines. Every other predicted type of global doom hasn’t happened because of human resourcefulness. No climate model can predict human resourcefulness.”
Ultimately he falls out in pretty much the same place as me: it’s a problem, and something has to be done, but nothing substantial will be done until there’s:
- obvious & undeniable evidence of global warming that even a low-grade moron can’t ignore, or;
- an economic way of solving global warming.
Failing that, it’ll stay a debate.
UPDATE, May 2025: Obviously I don’t go back to review old posts very often, or I would have made this edit earlier. Clearly I do not want Scott Adams to be president…although even with all his bullshit, it’s hard to imagine how he could be worse than the incumbent.
[tags]scott adams, dilbert, global warming[/tags]
Skirl | Dan Dickinson 
he’s right of course, but he is making two points. Maybe he’s a lawyer.
1) the case has not been made
2) humans are adaptive
2) is only required if 1) turns out to be correct.
Me … we have just undergone 1,000 years of cooling off, and now its warming up. But now i am debating 1) … 🙂
I disagree with your interpretation. I think he’s saying the case has been made enough to satisfy 99% of the world’s scientists, but not people who have a vested interest in denying it (and there are many, so the counter-message stays out there). Read his point #1 again.
There’s definitely hyperbole on both sides; he’s not saying the case for global warming hasn’t been made, he’s saying the case for imminent global disaster hasn’t. Still, just because the bomb in front of you has a long slow fuse doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pay attention to it. 🙂
You could pretty much boil the article down to one statement: people are predictable. If you look at this over a 60-year-span — pretty much from the time that Silent Spring was published to 10-15 years from now when global warming simply isn’t even a debate anymore — it goes pretty much the same as any other contentious social issue of the last century or two.