Or is that really the two types of alarmists?
Dave Ropeik writes in “The Ethics of Climate Change Denial“:
…There really are two different climate change denier communities; one whose denialism arises honestly from the subconscious human need we all have for social cohesion, and one that comes out of selfishness and greed. Those of us who want action on climate change must work with the first group with respect. But we should treat the others like the enemy of the common good they have declared themselves to be.
Ropeik must have written this while projecting into a mirror.
That sums it up nicely.
Those aren’t people on the track, they’re strawmen.
alternately,
one could merely lay thier ear to the track, verify if there really is a train a’coming and not just smoke/mirrors, ‘n noisemakers
(need to follow the link for my comments to make sense)
Let’s me give this a shot. His comments could (should read)…
There really are two different climate alarmist communities; one whose alarmism arises honestly from the subconscious human need we all have for social cohesion and the need to believe every fracking doomsday scenario that comes along, and one that comes out of selfishness and greed – the need to keep the grant money rolling in (or who, perhaps, are Gorishly delusional). Those of us who want to stop unworkable, dishonest, knee-jerk policy changes must work with the first group with respect and educate them. But we should treat the others like the enemy of the common good they have declared themselves to be.
How’s that?