The Culture War on Climate
A culture war is defined as a cultural conflict between social groups, characterized by the struggle for dominance of their values, beliefs, and practices. Showing their support directed towards the progressive side of cultural advocacy, and in the climate controversy, Politico writes a lengthy article titled, “We’ve lost the culture war on climate.”
A very telling paragraph in the article is, “There’s no way around it: The left strategy on climate needs to be rethought,” said Jody Freeman, who served as counselor for energy and climate change in President Barack Obama’s White House. “We’ve lost the culture war on climate, and we have to figure out a way for it to not be a niche leftist movement.”
While commonsense can be defined as sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts, I have often heard the expression progressive values and morals described as illogical and irrational. I have enough progressivism among my own family and friends to acknowledge that leftist liberals do not think of their ideals as being outside the commonsensical realm. They assume conservatives or traditionalists employ old, outmoded, and antiquated thinking.
Nothing destroys common sense faster than incensed anger and relentless hatred. I have read enough of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)” published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to comprehend that almost any behavior that results in extreme anger, hatred, and aggression is excused as a disease or disorder. I make that point on both sides of the political spectrum, but progressives seem to eat a lot more of that cake.
On climate change, the answer of the progressive is always a reliance on the term “consensus.” Facts, details, and fundamentals are always deferred to the back burner and considered inconsequential.
When journalism, or any faction, looks at the current climate controversy in terms of culture, and not science, there can be no doubt, the argument is ideological and its underlying principle is conjectural. When carbon dioxide or CO2 is perpetually referred to as a “greenhouse gas” rather than its true value as the 6th element in the “Periodic Table of Elements”, joined by 2 atoms or the 8th placed element, oxygen, you can be assured their acceptance of climate change is strictly in the advocacy.
When science is eclipsed by values, beliefs, and practices, then bona fide science means nothing. Instead, it becomes an emotional construct, and we can all form a scientific opinion based on feeling. If that is the case, then the consensus argument, whether mathematically disproven or not, is incessant enough. As an Obama official declared in the second paragraph above, they have to move it away from a “niche leftist movement” because they have extensively moved it away from a scientific movement, and, in some cases, because of their distortions and contortions, toward a bowel movement.
Solastalgia is a disorder caused by the distress of environmental change. I write in the article Radical Renegades, “Solastalgia another form of depression or distress caused by environmental transition, such as climate change, natural disasters, and extreme weather conditions. Naturally, though, these are not disorders brought on or proliferated by actual physical events. Rather, these conditions generate and advance as a result of the marketing and consternation of climate change, which alarmists have now modified to the more harsh-sounding, “climate crisis” or “climate emergency”. The longer it takes to persuade the masses that climate change is real, the louder the voices of doom and gloom become.
Those deafening voices come from Politico and most of the legacy media, where their side of the culture conflict is everything and true science is inconsequential.
