Why would climate skeptics be interested in writing fictional stories?
John M. Cape – author of “Almost Zero”
Why would climate skeptics be interested in writing fictional stories?
The simple answer is that they capture our imagination. There is indeed a market for dystopian literature. Alarmists have had great success in this area.
Nature's End is a 1986 adventure film about humanity's destruction of the atmosphere due to poor environmental decisions. “Flight Behavior” by Barbara Kingsolver is a poetic piece about the monarch butterfly's inability to cope with global warming. Ian MacEwan's Solar deals with a bureaucrat dealing with global warming.
In movies, similar narratives blame humans for various environmental disasters. The Mad Max series follows a crazy world that burns the last remnants of fossil fuels. “Don't Look Up” mocks skeptics as unreasonable and unscientific. “The Day After Tomorrow” depicts the catastrophic climate effects that led to oceanic events that led to the beginning of the next glaciation.
In fact, all of these stories depict a world where humans disrupt the balance of nature, and then nature pulls out the ax and takes the scalp.
It seems to me that the scenario favored by climate skeptics is that nature kills our role through natural processes—or that humans cause the damage and nature “gets off the hook.” For example, the late Michael Crichton wrote state of fear, It was a very commercial product, with over a million copies printed. This is about the harm caused by environmentalists that they can blame on human impacts. It's refreshing and well-written, but follows a path rarely traveled.
If you're a writer and looking for a subject to explore, the climate skepticism genre isn't currently overexploited. Granted, this may be a thankless and unpopular project for you, but you have to accept it. Also, please note that no movies have been made based on this specific work of Michael Crichton – so your efforts may never make it to the silver screen.
Perhaps a better question is whether you would be happier in the blogosphere, or writing nonfiction books. Of course, this depends on your personality.
I think bloggers are usually tethered to their computers. They have to constantly track the hot topics of the day and work quickly to get their two cents.
Nonfiction reference books are often proprietary. They have some expertise, it's essentially their specialty. They tend to stick to their own lane. They may be scientists or academics who create course materials. They often seek publicity through emails, YouTube videos and editorials on social media.
Generalists often attempt to integrate many different topics for the reader. It's a bit like writing “Climate Science for Dummies.” The key is to document the source and try to tell it in an interesting but scientifically accurate way. Sometimes these two goals are not easy to achieve simultaneously.
This is where writing a novel gives you more freedom. Your character can say whatever they want, whether or not it aligns with the journals written by their peers. You can push the story in any direction you want and make anything you want happen. If you take it too far, you end up falling into the fantasy genre. If you understand it correctly, then you can position it as hard science. The end result is that these choices don't have to limit your narrative, but will better suit certain audiences.
One last thing about fictional methods. Climate science is a slow-moving process. This is part of why science is so difficult. Make predictions and wait decades to see if it happens. Politicians love these kinds of decisions. Ultimately, it works or not, but they don't have to agonize over the results for years. They left before the test.
Novels can accelerate people's imagination of scientific developments in the distant future. It may reveal the truth, but more importantly, it describes the details of why various possible outcomes matter. Books take a while to read, but they also allow you to go beyond sound bites and explore more fully the many facets of the issues covered.
As climate skeptics, we are at a difficult crossroads.
- Our climate blogs and materials have never been better, yet at the same time they are less discoverable by ordinary citizens.
- Major search engines intentionally direct searches to .gov and .org sources—sources that, unfortunately, are often neither objective nor impartial.
- The reality is that few people understand the countless tidbits of climate science information circulating in the daily news and online.
- Many of our brightest climate skeptics are outdated or have passed away.
- In this country, political parties take very different positions, but our leaders rarely explain clearly the key points.
- There's a lot of stuff floating around. Some are gems, but many are red herrings.
- Our media is not shy about reporting that any unusual weather event is caused by increased greenhouse gases. Statistics suggest otherwise, but they rarely take these steps.
- Our young people are heavily indoctrinated in this area and are not necessarily up to the task of educating themselves on what is going on.
- Activists are doing stupid but newsworthy things.
If you care about the integrity of climate science, now would be a good time to get interested. You can do it the hard way, or you can simply entertain yourself while doing it. If too many of us fail to do this, we will pay dearly for our ignorance.
John Cape is the author of UnZeroed? The second product in his series of net-zero policy disasters. Brutal net-zero policies quickly weaned the U.S. off fossil fuels. Power was intermittent, bandits roamed the highways, and riots broke out in major cities. Newly elected President Jeanne Almond never expected to win and now faces an even more desperate situation. China remains the only global superpower. Billionaires, the media and global warming stalwarts have joined forces to support the former president's re-election bid to undo the nascent recovery.
related
