>Just like Kerry, Ehrlich, and these other groups are not really interested in solving the problem of climate change—for example, promoting research in technologies like nuclear energy, carbon capture technologies, and means of adaptation. Instead, they wish to elevate their struggle to an ersatz-religion that allows them to simultaneously enjoy their wealth and lecture the rest of the world from a position of moral superiority.
I've never seen anyone hit the nail on the head quite as squarely as this. It's breathtaking.
> the imminent end of the world, something that can only be prevented if we fundamentally change the way we live. Of course, by "we," they actually mean "you."
It's almost impressive how this guy managed write an opinion piece that is exclusively argumentium ad hominem.
To paraphrase: "Paul Ehrlich is a profession doom mongerer. AOC doesn't believe factuality is important. John Kerry is a hypocrite who owns a private jet." And then the article just sort of ends.
Even if you take all those assertions as objective fact, how do they contribute to a central thesis? I don't see any substantive analysis that shows, or even attempts to show, that climate change is a conversation that is primarily driven by the social or financial or political elite. Also, even if we were to accept as fact that the discourse on climate change is largely driven by a bored bourgeois looking for a project of meaning, that's not automatically mutually exclusive with it being about genuine concerns about the state of the planet. There is zero attempt to prove or analyze that part of the thesis in any meaningful way either. Total anti-intellectual, emotionally driven puff piece.
9 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 37.1 ms ] threadI've never seen anyone hit the nail on the head quite as squarely as this. It's breathtaking.
> the imminent end of the world, something that can only be prevented if we fundamentally change the way we live. Of course, by "we," they actually mean "you."
To paraphrase: "Paul Ehrlich is a profession doom mongerer. AOC doesn't believe factuality is important. John Kerry is a hypocrite who owns a private jet." And then the article just sort of ends.
Even if you take all those assertions as objective fact, how do they contribute to a central thesis? I don't see any substantive analysis that shows, or even attempts to show, that climate change is a conversation that is primarily driven by the social or financial or political elite. Also, even if we were to accept as fact that the discourse on climate change is largely driven by a bored bourgeois looking for a project of meaning, that's not automatically mutually exclusive with it being about genuine concerns about the state of the planet. There is zero attempt to prove or analyze that part of the thesis in any meaningful way either. Total anti-intellectual, emotionally driven puff piece.