No, you misunderstood what I meant.

I've seen people claim that slowing down or stopping economic (or even reversing, but I admit this position is rarer) progress was an acceptable tradeoff to counter global warming. Almost all solutions proposed by climate alarmists follow this pattern, albeit to varying degrees.

The analogy was that 100 years from now, people would see our current era as we see the industrial age. That is, unless we stop progressing.

Formulated differently, if degrowth had been followed in the industrial age, we would still be living in the industrial age (but the Earth would be a degree cooler).

If denialists had anything other than irrational arguments & mischaracterizations they wouldn’t be denialists.

Well, the capabilities (or lack thereof) of the person(s) doing the categorizing is rather important as well.

For example, I am a conspiracy theorist, and the number of nasty things that have been said about "me" by literally delusional Normies over the years gets a little annoying after a while. It would be a real shame if these chickens were to come home to roost at a particularly inconvenient time.

Anyways, I wish you and your Rational crew best of luck with your climate problems!

Mostly it’s obvious you’re just tired of being consistently called out on your nonsense. It hurts your unearned feelings on superiority. A trait conspiracy theorists have been repeatedly shown to have I might add.

Like I said: you’ve made it an emotional core of your identity.

Protip: you can't actually read my mind, neurotypical. It is your mind you are reading, not mine.

Please read up on some science.

> Which notable people think we should go back to a pre-industrial age?

It's being suggested quite clearly in some of the most unexpected places. One of the most curious things about the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, is that a great deal of the funding for some of its largest exhibits comes from one of the Koch brothers. Specifically there is the floor sized exhibit on human evolution which repeatedly emphasizes a subtext of adaptation, adaptation, adaptation as the driving force behind development of modern humans. The proponents don't care if this adaptation can also take the form of a misery-soaked return to pre-industrial society in 500 years, they won't be around to deal with it.

But they know that it's an asymmetrically structured argument that is difficult to counter using the language of progressive politics, in which adaptation is also emphasized but of course in different contexts.