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?
4 Comments
Comments are closed.
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.