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 doo

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.