Everything you know about climate comedy you learnt from me, and it was bollocks—Part I

 

Naomi Oreskes interview hilites B Series 14 wide

You can’t be too paranoid: For safety reasons, Naomi Oreskes only laughs at jokes she tells herself. “There are a lot of bad actors out there,” says the award-winning actress. “Ignoring everyone but myself is, like, the ultimate system of peer review.”

What a fool I’ve been. What a handsome, persuasive fool.

Don’t feel too bad if I fooled you too, which I did. Heck, I’m so charismatic I even fooled myself.

But first, some basic definitions.


The Science is the mythical evidence for the urgent net dangerousness of man-caused climate change.

If males continue emitting (or to use the scientific term, spewing) carbon dioxide (or carbon pollution), then anthropogenic global warming (or Earth systems disruption) will keep warming the atmosphere (or literally destroying the planet) at a logarithmic (or dramatic) rate, according to the myth (or science).

And—in a century which has already seen the destruction of Pluto—can our solar system afford to lose yet another planet?

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

Uncontacted persons have never heard of “the” science, although they’re often aware of science (as in, you know, science science).

UPs were once believed to be confined to certain areas of the Amazon, a monastery in Greece and the handful of Intensive Care Units [ICUs] equipped to care for long-term coma cases.*

But this is now thought to be a vast underestimate, because I changed my mind. Tom Fuller actually tells me that as much as 40% of the Earth’s population may be climate-naïve (which ought to make jury selection a lot easier when we finally get serious about Science Change and hold war-crimes trials for the bastiches who’ve opposed international efforts to do science—a sort of Science Nuremberg, if you will).

Believers and unbelievers make up everyone else.

The former are of course wrong and the latter (ipso facto) are correct, because the myth in question—The Science—is really a myth. In fact it’s not even true. Au contraire, it’s actually a kind of myth.

Another term for unbelievers is kafirs, but this is offensive to the ear of purists, who insist the real plural is kuffār.

Believers are sometimes called alarmists, but this can be insulting as it implies they’re gullible enough to take The Science seriously and emotionally, when for all we know they’re just paying lip service.

None of these people actually matter, except on Election Day (the one day set aside each olympiad for the expression of opinions as to the veridicality of myths). They don’t even have Internet access, and if they do, they definitely don’t use it to debate climate science—with the exceptions classified below.

Deniers, like the present author, are the élite infidels who fight in the van of disbelief. We not only scoff at the notion that milder winters, longer flowering seasons and a northward shift in butterfly migration patterns constitute a threat to our lives, but also have so little resembling “lives” that we sacrifice time and energy putting our scoffs into words.

Lucid and beautiful words.

Words we type, pro bono, for the benefit of all mankind.

Lew Abuse primate smile 0002

Survival Instinct: Hopefully it’ll never happen, but if a Scientist tells you a joke, this propitiatory rictus—demonstrated by Stephan Lewandowsky—is the safest way to show you’re laughing at them, not at the science.

Believalists don’t just believe (as do all believers, nominally) in the planetary lethality of global warming. They also believe—more importantly, and far more sincerely—in belief itself.

To believalists, unbelief is evil, not just wrong (with apologies to Phelim McAleer).

If you’re a denier like me, everytroll who contradicts the truth of your words online is necessarily a believalist. If they didn’t consider you an immoral person for preferring science to The Science, they wouldn’t bother.

Believalists occur in two genders: male and Naomi Oreskes.

Due to their rôle in enforcing the extreme views of a handful of fringe scientactivists, they’re also known as consensus enforcers.

Deniers will be aware—the hard way—that believalists take deep offence at being slurred as warmists (implying that the cult they belong to is some sort of religion). Once vilified, his/Naomi’s indignation can only be assuaged by the use of a less hateful designation, like snuggle-wugglist.

Lew Arctic Challenge 12 copy

Dad Jokes: broad physical humor, or crapstick, is demonstrated here by father-and-son team Stephan and John, who say this calibre of gag is perfectly safe. “Comedy is like The Science: if it goes over a 12-year-old’s head, you need to dumb it down more,” says Lewandowsky, Sr. “Hence the importance of the focus group—or ‘peer review’—system.”

In Part II, Wittiness Aside: Climate Wittiness, and Why Everything You Think You Know About it is a Lie, we put humor aside and cut to the desiccated and literal core of the Comedy Problem.


* Are the uncontacted races forgivable or damnable? Are they truly to blame for their non-acceptance of The Science’s message? This question, also known as the Valladolid Controversy, is a diabolically complex one.

Fortunately, the answer is simple, because religion—like The Science—is decided by concensus. And the overwhelming majority of theologists is clear: as a corollary of the doctrine of Grace, they say, the benighted tribes who are born, live and die outside the borders of Climatedom will be judged mercifully, or at least leniently. Provided they live “good” lives, in the way The Science lived when it descended to earth and walked among us—refraining from the use of hydrocarbon-based electricity, flying only when necessary (e.g. to attend climate conferences, or to recuperate from the rigors thereof in Monaco), only eating foods sourced within a spear’s-throw radius—then their souls will be spared the torments that are the rightful wages of unbelief.

8 thoughts on “Everything you know about climate comedy you learnt from me, and it was bollocks—Part I

  1. If the butterflies are migrating north where you are, it’s definitely worse than we thought. Don’t they realise that the earth is not only flat, but vertical, like a flypaper? There’s no way round it.

    Many thanks for this explanation. I feel odder, but wiser.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Brad, I really must protest on behalf of those multitudes with now-damaged psyches who are damaged beyond repair from your profligate use of climate porn – moving portraits of oleagenous Oreskes and face-ticking Len (oh when will he explode?). For ages now we of a delicate disposition have suffered from the horrendous image of Al; must we now be subject to the full panoply of climate evil.
    You run the very real risk of being branded a porn site, being visited by poor souls who have lost all sensibilities. Brad is bringing your fine reputation with the worthy 3% into disrepute.

    ACTION THIS DAY

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Tell me more, Sir Bedevere. This New Geometry fascinates me.

    OK—well, the modified flypaper, or Möbius Fly Strip, model is now the standard description of the Earth’s topology.

    The metaphor immediately clarifies the frustrating experience familiar to anyone who’s ever tried to walk to the horizon: you can’t move, because your feet are stuck.

    So are everyone’s. Which also explains why human life is an exercise in vainly buzzing in distress for a predetermined interval, then dying.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Vuurklip, Geoff,
    So this is what’s wrong with climate models – they’re using the wrong topology. If the Earth is indeed a pancake then it needs to be flipped over to let the heat and CO2 out. How could such intellectual eminences as Mann, Schmidt and Jones make such elementary mistakes? Also you would have thought that this elementary error would have come to light at Paris, the spiritual home of both the crêpe and climate modelling righteousness.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Yes, it’s strange that such an obvious solution didn’t occur to the crème de la crêpe climatique, when even a milquetoast maître de mediocrité like moi can follow your step-by-step explanation of the simple trick that could save our planet’s bacon.

    Like

  6. Was it a prelude to the Pause, or more of an overture? And is the current pause in the pause merely an interlude, a hiatus between hiati? Are we living in the Anthropocene or just an Interpausal between Naturozoic plateaux?

    If only climate science had some spare cash lying around, these would surely be the first fascinating questions they’d take on. After they’d answered all the tedious ones.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s