Suppose you’re a person who believes that anthropogenic climate change is very real and very, very bad news. Suppose further that you believe that portrayals of a future of chaotic weather and massively destructive rises in sea level — e.g., the portrayals we see in Kim Stanley Robinson’s recent novels — are not manifestations of apocalyptic alarmism but are sober, well-thought-out, plausible projections from the best current data. And suppose further that you read that Bret Stephens op-ed and think that it’s not only reasonable but self-evidently correct.
Where would such a person go to be taught, in calm, clear, and rational prose, why that last supposition is in conflict with the previous ones?
Text Patterns
May 1, 2017
I'm not sure that he would connect the dots in the way you're envisaging, but possibly Michael Northcott would be a useful conversation partner on this front.
I recommend Andrew Revkin's response: https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-change-uncertainties-bret-stephens-column.
This is a great question, I have been thinking about this piece myself as well (and what's more, reading your blog got me into the novels of KSR). SO…I will try to write a response on my blog, https://www.points-of-inflection.com – probably this coming weekend.
Okay, here's my attempt at a response.