Hjem Ideologi Postmodernisme Is Climate Change just another Neo-Marxist Idea?

Is Climate Change just another Neo-Marxist Idea?

Foto: liberationschool.org

First published at Liberty Nation.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, leftists all over the West were in disarray. They had lost their lodestar and were looking for a new source of meaning. Fortunately for them, a new fad that perfectly matched their core beliefs was on the horizon: global warming. Rather than segment the world into the oppressed working class and the oppressor capitalist class, they could now segment the world into the oppressed climate and the oppressor human capitalism. Polar bears became the new proletariat in this green communism.

Initially, the geophysics departments were populated by disinterested scientists, and they were able to protect against the onslaught of the neo-Marxists throughout the 1990s, but by the early 2000s, the scientists had lost. Climate science had become deeply ideologized.


How could this happen? Politicians throughout the West were handing out billions of dollars to anyone who was willing to say that the world was going to hell. This led to a two-fold process. On the one hand, climate alarmism attracted lefties into the fields of climate science, and so the new generation of scientists was no longer on a disinterested quest for truth but out to save the world.

On the other hand, many existing scientists were prostituting themselves. The chance of getting funding for research on the migratory pattern of the blue spotted owl increased exponentially if the scientists were just willing to say that climate change could threaten its survival.

Preposterous you say? It’s only a few years ago that the esteemed Scientific American claimed that the Syrian civil war was “hastened by climate change.” The list of things blamed on global warming is growing to outlandish proportions.

Most people still trust climate science, and public policy is firmly based on it. Any claim today that there is something wrong with it is frowned upon and dismissed as “denialism.” However, there is another part of the academic world which has been even more infected by Marxist ideas, and that is the humanities.


The esteemed professor of clinical psychology Dr. Jordan B. Peterson claims that the humanities have been completely corrupted by post-modernism, which rejects truth and logic as patriarchal oppression. He has stated that “I truly believe there is no hope for the humanities (and perhaps the university) in their current form.”

Whatever problems exist in climate science pale in comparison to the fatal collapse of integrity in the humanities field. The latest expression of its departure from reality is the claim that gender is a social construct. Boys and girls don’t exist, they claim, and to say otherwise is racist, misogynist, transphobic, and hateful.

The major difference between climate science and the humanities is that the latter has become so corrupt that you don’t have to be an expert to see it. Everyone knows that boys and girls are biologically different, and you must be ideologically possessed to believe otherwise.


If such blatant degradation of science and reason could occur in the humanities, is it possible that a similar albeit less pronounced corruption has taken place in climate science?

Consider the similarities: social justice warriors call everyone who disagrees with them racists, sexists and bigots. If you are skeptical of climate alarmism, you are quickly labeled a “denier.” In both cases, open exchange and rational debate are strongly discouraged, which are hallmark traits of totalitarian radicalism.

But consider some common-sense facts that every non-expert can appreciate. Thirty years have passed since climate alarmist Dr. James Hansen held his famous speech before Congress in 1988, warning them of impending doom within a century. In one-third of a century, you would expect a third of the predicted climate disaster to have occurred if the alarmist were right, yet nothing noticeable has occurred.

Think about it: would you even know that there has been any climate change if the media hadn’t constantly informed you about it? Could it be that the claims of approaching climate disaster have as much scientific basis to them as the claim that biological sex is a social construct?