[scottrogowski]

Yes. This is a "Very Online taxonomy".

While I think it's useful to think about mechanisms of collapse, the author seems to have a clear bias towards the belief that collapse will happen which feels very non-objective.

In my experience, the vast majority of people I interact with (maybe 90%+) fall into the author's categorization of "radical denier" or "partial denier".

I don't think there's anything "radical" about the belief that while things will change, society will go on. But calling the belief radical and suggesting that this is a belief only shared by Very Evil People (e.g. Koch Brothers) is a disingenuous straw man.

For the record, if I had to put myself into this unscientific taxonomy, I might be somewhere between a technological and economic optimist.

[elihu]

I suppose it's largely a problem of naming. "Denier" has negative connotations, but it's also the most obvious name to use. What would be a better, non-pejorative name? Life-will-go-on-ists?

The article later refers to an ideology of "eco-fascism" which is even more problematic. That seems like a name that detractors would apply to a group, not a label that someone would self-apply. I don't know what a neutral name would be, though.