THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE is in a rut. In mid-July, for example, Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth called for a crackdown on the emission of so-called greenhouse gases that are the inescapable byproduct of burning coal and oil. Any effort to choke off carbon-dioxide emissions will hit the American economy hard; nonetheless, to the dismay of industry, Wirth has in mind new, binding treaties to do just that. “The science calls on us to take urgent action,” Wirth declared at a Geneva conference on climate change. Industry — as represented by the Global Climate Coalition — responded as expected, arguing that the science is hopelessly complex and muddled: We should wait and see instead of doing anything rash and ruinously expensive.

This is the stale and predictable state of the global warming debate. Environmental Cassandras declare the world is on fire; naysayers say nay. Greens use elaborate computer models to show that the atmosphere is working its way from a simmer to a full rolling boil. Industry chooses different computer models and finds that global temperatures are the same as they ever were. The scientists can’t agree and the layman is understandably bewildered.