The 21st Century's most unlikely plot device: heroic billionaires vs evil climate scientists


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Always a good day when you can start it off with a Phil Folglio drawing…


#3

Is that disappointing close to the plot of Michael Crichton’s ‘State of Fear’? That book was a real ‘never meet your heroes’ moment for me.


#4

Casting this as a fictional plot is brilliant. Very nearly all CT fall apart under the laugh test. If they don’t, it’s time to get worried. Cf: Iran-Contra.


#5

Roger That!


#6

I’m not sure if the “97 % of all climate scientists” is a good argument. I do know that it’s not meant this way but it can give the “science is only a poll” feeling.


#7

The 21st Century is full of ridiculous plot twists already.


#8

It would be funny if it were so depressingly true…


#9

The followups to the tweet are a masterclass in rebutting climate deniers with aplomb and thoroughness.

Unfortunately, they’re also a masterclass in climate deniers ignoring any rebuttals and repeatedly throwing the same denials in attempt to drown out the opposition.


#10

The timestamp on the Tweet is from 19 months ago. Unless Westerfeld is also a character on Steins;Gate, he didn’t tweet that from his “Zeroes” tour.


#11

Right you are – thanks!


#12

Yeah - I can’t do that any more. Same as arguing with gun nuts (and I suspect a large overlap between the two populations). There is literally nothing that will change their minds, they will gang up, bury you with insults, congratulate each other on how they have defeated you with their logical skills, etc etc. All you do is end up stressed, angry, and blocking dozens of people.

So, despite having a background in climatology and atmospheric science I just don’t engage on the subject any more, my blood pressure can’t take it.


#13

lol, @Donald_Petersen, a little close to home?


#14

It’s certainly guaranteed to get published. And a film treatment.

“The Passion of the Koch”


#15

Wish I had thought of that!


#16

A nice thing about being dishonest is that you can damn someone if they do or if they don’t. When people bring up the 97% consensus, deniers accuse them of thinking science is like an opinion poll; and yet in its absence often the same people will say the science is unsettled because not everyone agrees.

I think trying to choose your words to give such people no purchase is a futile effort. They’ll make up what they need regardless. But to anyone honest, pointing out that 97% of scientists agree on something should suggest what the balance of evidence actually is, or at least show what nonsense it is to pretend it is just a greedy contrivance.


#17

So, Ayn Rand’s come back from the dead, then, is what you’re saying @doctorow?


#18

That is essentially the plot of Kingsmen, with the worlds democratic leaders joining the evil environmentalist side against the interests of humanity.


#19

Didn’t Glenn Beck already write this?


#20

Rule 34 says that there will be a version with “Koch” spelt differently.