I have no idea why people would upvote a junk article like this. It has two cheap rhetorical ploys. First, a crude and disgusting analogy with rape, of all th

I have no idea why people would upvote a junk article like this. It has two cheap rhetorical ploys. First, a crude and disgusting analogy with rape, of all things. (There's a much better analogy to the governmental action that stopped CFCs, and actually worked.) Second, an accusation of hypocrisy that is completely without actual facts. And more important: so what if some elites who profess to care about climate change fly too much? It's deeply un-serious to demand pure motives on the part of everyone who professes a certain policy, before taking action. Counterpoint, organized by a climate researcher: https://noflyclimatesci.org https://noflyclimatesci.org