IN THE debate over global warming, many have claimed to have found a middle ground and charted a third way between the extremes of denialism on the one hand and utter despair on the other.
Consider a few recent examples. For the Danish environmental apostate BjØrn Lomborg, the middle ground means coping with moderate climate change while striving to help the world’s poor – but Lomborg ignores or downplays worst-case climate scenarios, which hopelessly undermines his argument. Meanwhile, US environmental renegades Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus have claimed that a third way can be charted if we de-emphasise mandatory…
