Irony so incandescent it actually hurts to look directly at it.
I listened to a remarkable bit of self-parody on National Public Radio on Tuesday: a moderator, a pair of experts, and some very earnest listeners trying to figure out how to most politely tell climate change skeptics they are dangerous idiots.
Yes, on NPR’s “1A,” finding a way to convert those neanderthals, or at least move the “conversation” in the right direction, was the topic of nearly 40 minutes of chatter that was at times quite unintentionally funny.
To be clear, this program was not about debating the existence of climate change. That was already settled for everyone whose head isn’t stuck in a microwave. This was about talking to pea-brains who do not fully believe drastic policy changes are required to combat climate change, and—this is important—having these “conversations” in a way that would not frighten or anger these stunted children.
That the entire segment presupposed that the panelists are so much smarter, wiser, more virtuous than skeptics—or “deniers,” to borrow that creepy nomenclature—and thus, extremely condescending, seemed to escape everyone involved. Let’s dig in.
Said moderator Joshua Johnson at the outset:
Clearly climate change is tough to discuss, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of its existence. Or maybe because of that evidence. I mean, think about it. If someone tried to hit you over the head with a bunch of facts and figures, supremely confident that they are right and you are wrong, how would you feel? Or, if someone flat out refused to hear you out, despite the facts being really clear, and just dug in their heels to avoid feeling like they lost an argument, what would that be like? We want to elevate this debate, to change the way we talk about climate change.
Bold mine, of course, because…wow. These people would seem to possess not even trace amounts of self-awareness.
Bledsoe took a question from a caller who wondered why President Trump and other skeptics are so “adamantly ignorant” on the issue, and he warned of not talking about it in terms that are too science-y.
“We who talk about climate change have to talk about it differently. We can’t make it a technocratic or scientific issue,” Bledsoe said.
No, you really can’t. But not for the reason you think.
Myhre was more scathing and then neatly shifted into how gender dynamics fits into all this, showcasing what I’m assuming she learned in Intersectionalism 301 at UC-Davis.
“My view is that we need to indict public leaders who are trafficking in science denial as a form of misconduct and a form of putting the American public into danger,” she said. “However, I do think that we as scientists have engaged nonstop in trying to confront denialism and often that engagement is a very—it’s coded male power brokering that is very problematic in the culture because it pits people against each other instead of focusing on shared values.”
Bold mine, again, because, again…wow. She’s really hitting all the libtard buttons she can reach, ain’t she? C’mon, honey, work some transgenderIslamophobicNaziracistcapitalistgreedbigotedsexism into the mix, whydon’tcha? I got faith in you; I know you can do it. In fact, I suspect you couldn’t stop it if you tried.
Bledsoe interrupted to say the U.S. problem with climate change was unique in its political and cultural aspects, but Myhre responded:
I would agree with that, but I just want to reflect back again that the entire world, by and large, and the world’s global resources are run by men, and those decisions are made by men, and so one of the fundamental aspects of solutions for climate change has to do with anti-racism and anti-misogyny, and that is at a global level. The closer we get to an equitable and safe society for everyone, specifically for the rights of girls and women, then that’s a component of the pathway for us to get to climate solutions.
Ahhh, there it is. Earlier, though, she accidentally let a little raw truth slip out:
I mean, you can talk about the science until you’re blue in the face right? But then when we are actually trying to sit in relationship with people, that’s a two-way street. That is an experience where you have to listen in order to engender trust and relationship, and part of the piece around this is that realizing as scientists, we’re trying to broker power and authority in the public. We’re trying to gain agency and authority, in order for the science that we are stewarding to be integrated into public decision-making. But that piece around brokering for power, man, you gotta get curious about that, right? Because there’s all sorts of lines that divide our culture around, who is trusted? Who gets buy-in? Who has authority?
And that’s what it’s REALLY all about; for the Left, it always is. They can’t ever keep the mailed fist hidden in the velvet glove for very long. I got lots more to say about that, but I’m going to hold onto it for another post.
The crazy bint then went on to have a total moonbat-meltdown on Twitter over having been “disrespected” and “patronized” by the men in the discussion, which I find quite a bit less than surprising (before tootling off to a “sexual harrassment” meeting, naturally). Yeah, I can totally see this seized-up nutbar engaging in a calm, rational, trust-and-relationship engendering chat with a truly well-informed skeptic expecting to bring him or her around to Her Truth on the climate-change scam. I’d give her about a sentence and a half of being able to maintain her obviously precarious sang-froid before going bughouse and getting violent, no more.
A lot of religious discussions seem to end that way, you know.