This snippet from the Guardian just tickled my sense of humour, particularly when you compare it with the recent warm reviews of the Heretic which also features a woman scientist but in the Heretic, they are a global warming sceptic:
Two recent plays about climate change have only reinforced this view of the cold-as-ice career woman. In the National’s tepid take on global warming, Greenland, political aide Phoebe lives for her work. When she finally sheds her suit during a night of passion with climate-model scientist Dr Cox, she spends more time caressing her touch-screen phone than her man. The sweet nothings of Dr Cox (an atypically sensitive scientist, naturally) fall on deaf ears – or one of which, at least, is permanently attached to a BlackBerry. And in Filter’s otherwise more successful, sideways glance at global warming, Water, the driven dame is again portrayed as unsuited to sex. As in Greenland, political aide (again – an aide rather than a politician) Claudia Forde is never far from her laptop and, when she gets together with diver Joe, she’s more switched on by her laptop than her lover. Later, when Claudia discovers Joe is attempting a suicidal dive, she persists with her business meeting. It is a rare moment of inauthenticity in an otherwise finally crafted show (Guardian)
Compare that to the review of the Heretic in the Telegraph:
His own play about climate change, The Heretic, proves an absolute corker, funny, provocative and touching, and absolutely resolute in its refusal to lapse into the apocalyptic gloom that usually attends this subject.
So, what can we conclude from that? That global warming alarmists are cold hearted careerist whilst sceptics have a sense of humour? That plays on global warming are boring political propaganda written by people with no sense of humour? Or that Telegraph reviewers go to better plays than Guardian reviewers?