I'm surprised that no one is talking about globalism. Bannon and his crowd is well known for hating it. I would bet quite a lot of money that the reason why Trump left the Paris Accord is because his crowd hates globalism. Science or science skepticism has nothing to do with it. Nor does As Trump put it with such a brilliant redundancy "economics and financial" matters.
So this is just a short diary to remind people to dig deeper. And to use their language against them.
Yes, we must up, but we must also speak well. And well means accurately so that the real issues are not obscured. Trump and Bannon do not want to seed any power to anyone else especially no entities outside of the United States. Remember this is part of America First strategy.
No, wait.
America First is not a strategy, it's not even an ideology. America first is a major philosophy that drive the Bannonites. And of course, that philosophy is not one that will save the world since it doesn't address the world. Why don't we talk about that. Why don't journalist ever ever ever ask these people--like Paul Ryan—"why"?
A more long-winded way of putting that is why doesn't anyone--the media, Democrats, the DNC, Hillary anyone--ever ask these people to justify their decisions?
Have you seen anyone using language like evidence-based decision-making? A few stories about the climate change issue mentions science/research, but the language remains weak and vague. The question should always be what evidence do you have to support that?
Imagine the discussion that would ensue if we ask questions like, Okay, you don't believe in the world working together to solve problems that are global in scale. Why?