[vba616]

The original comment you made, which was downvoted (but I upvoted it) conveyed to me an emotion of angry refutation. (Which I'm not judging, so don't start about tone policing)

You seemed to be saying "don't pay attention to his quote because he's clueless about climate change", but the quote is about people who aren't, say, climate scientists, being gullible about the topic.

It's a self-referential quote. If you refuted it, does that mean that non climate scientists can judge climate science?

It seemed like an amusing paradox, and I guess I'm curious about your motivation.

[wumpus]

My motivation is that I'm a scientist (before and after a long Silicon Valley career) who is annoyed by writers who write a bunch of novels where the villains are scientists corrupted by their lust for grant money. It's a trite complaint that is used in politics to claim 100% of scientists are biased, and plays a big role in the pushback against environmental and climate science.

Thanks for the upvote.