What kind of egomania is that? How is the prevention of a possible global catastrophe a question of "betting against" a cartoonist?

If the scientific consensus is right, we should do everything to avoid the disaster. And if it's not, we've invested in renewables and saved some single-use fossil fuels for a "rainy day". (These are the only fossil deposits for the lifetime of the planet -- does it make sense to spend them all within 200 years?)

There are no downsides to taking action here. But Adams thinks we should first engage in meta-discussion about "persuasion", so it's not time to do anything yet...? Sigh.

Scott Adams likes to describe himself as smart (as he does in the linked post), and I wouldn't argue with that. But his is the kind of non-constructive smartness that works to find flaws in everything and everybody without actually forming a rigorous holistic view of anything. It's an excellent basis for a three-panel daily comic, but not for global policy.

And it is a strawman attack

"Many people suggested that I could simply do some homework, on my own, and get to the bottom of climate science."

Obviously you can't get down to climate science, no serious person is suggesting it. The same as with LIGO, you can't get down to gravitational waves and understand them. The reason is that these people have decades of experience and studied some really hard topics - not liberal arts. To get to the bottom you need to take the same route into the topic.

I might be the last person believing in the usefulness of experts in these days - real experts on a topic not those "experts" on CNN and Fox. I know this is unpopular.

It's also funny that people want to understand climate change when from my experience with people many can't even add simple numbers or correctly work with percentages, e.g. calculating VAT. This is the illusion of I-can-do-everything-if-I-want-something. No you can't. Sometimes it takes decades of training, say piano, to do something. Everyone thinks today he is entitled to understand this and entitled to have an opinion that is as valuable as the opinion of someone who did something for years. THIS is the illusion.

Site note to Scott Adams: Reality - climate in this case - does not care the least what you think of it.

[Edit] In short: I don't care about the opnion of a comic writer about climate science.

To be more precise:

No non-expert in field X can evaluate claims with respect to field X.

The phenomenon you're talking about is with respect to lay people. But there is a parallel phenomenon that happens with intelligent people with expertise in unrelated fields. It's relatively easy to read a handful of papers in a field other than your own and convince yourself that you are qualified to pass judgement. But how can you be sure you'd see a problem in the methodology of a paper, even if it existed? And the larger problem: how do you know the set of papers you read is representative?

In the worst case, there could have been a shift in the field that no one bothered to document (perhaps because the shift was due to a lack of publishable results). This is my number one gripe reading old papers in computer science: sometimes an idea just disappears from the literature because frankly it didn't work, but you can't cite a paper that just says that outright, even though everyone (who works closely in the field) knows it to be true.

In my experience, both problems take time and experience to solve. Which means that if you don't have those, you're better off finding an expert you trust and asking them---in person---what papers are worth reading.

There is not a similar debate about climate change.

I would assume that any scientific claim which results in a public policy change that creates losers and winners would create a very different kind of debate where scientists are subject to external influences and non-scientists feel the need weigh in in order to avoid being the loser.

There aren't any "sides". There's the science, and there's a propaganda campaign that's driven by energy corporations, and to a smaller extent deluded conspiracy theorists like Adams. Framing it as a debate at all is intellectually dishonest and just makes public confusion worse.