[Initial musings on the OP]
===
I should probably recuse myself, but....
Cool idea! I wonder if there is a strong overlap between the groups who have strong opinions about these two topics--either way.
Change is the fundamental value--implicit in each of these overarching ideas.
...and in both systems the change is obscure, and it takes work and learning to be able to see the change--to see how, when, and where it changes.
Could it be as simple as the slow, long-term character, and gradualism of the change that makes it hard to "believe?"
===
I can see the need to rigorously define change vs. variance, to better talk about these ideas....
[Discussion on Evolution may be able to help inform the discussion on CC.]
[& vice versa--for additional or novel evolution modes/mechanisms]
But, knowing both these areas well,
I can see lots of parallel....
Wow! Thanks!!
One parallel that breaks down is the "population size" or sample size that we can look at.
It's more like the planet is one individual of one species, and we're watching it evolve--each year representing a new generation for that species--but we never get to see what other individuals of that species are doing during each generation.
We have nothing to compare the variance with, horizontally across each generation--except models of how a similar individual should vary--containing slight mutations such as different CO2 levels, cloud cover, albedo, etc.
===
I can see there might be similar determinants of the basic "conservative v. progressive" dichotomy.
...again both involving change....
hmmmm....
bbl....
~out to lunch
p.s. Maybe you could have just entitled this topic as CHANGE DENIAL/ACCEPTANCE
