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]
It’s been a busy weekend. Yesterday we got up early, went to