How leftist ideologues packaged the Apocalypse.

And this time, the agents of the Fake News Industry have created a new hero in Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old Swedish girl who challenged the world (well, the West, actually) during a dramatic, emotion-laden monologue that she delivered in front of the United Nations.

Thunberg’s performance was political theater at its absolute best—or worst, depending upon how one looks at it. That being said, that this adolescent believes at least some of the nonsense she espoused is a proposition few would doubt. The adults by whom she’s been raised and educated have undoubtedly been hard at work brainwashing her from a very early age into thinking that the Earth is about to bring its 4.5 billion-year run to a cataclysmic end.

To further compound her anxieties, little Greta has been taught two other ideas that fundamentally distinguish the Godless apocalyptic scenario to which she subscribes from its traditional, theocentric counterpart:

First, the Earth’s implosion will result in the sheer obliteration of all human beings. There is no afterlife to which the apocalypse will lead.

Second, human beings can stop the apocalypse. We can stop the world from ending.

We just won’t.

From a traditional Christian perspective, there is nothing that human beings can do to prevent God from fulfilling His own will. Within the framework of “climate change,” however, the framework within which Greta has been reared, Armageddon is avoidable.

The point I’d like to make here, though, concerns, not the left’s latest child-prop, but the utter failure on the part of conservatives to fight, to genuinely fight, their enemies. The issue of “climate change” is the proverbial textbook illustration of this seemingly incorrigible ineptitude on the part of conservatives to engage in what many, including conservative media celebrities, typically describe as “political warfare.”

As has long been noted, success in politics (like success in war), is ultimately a matter of “perception.” Warfare, whether in politics or on the battlefield, encompasses psychological warfare at least as much as it does physical warfare. What we perceive depends upon how we look. That those on the left are well aware of this fact is made plain by the apparent effortlessness by which they create and promote their narratives, the conceptual lenses through which an unwitting public then proceeds to view the world.

It is crucial to recognize that the content of the narrative is inseparable from the container, the specific terms in which the narrative is couched. More specifically, it is these terms that constitute the narrative.

Leftist ideologues originally packaged their version of the Apocalypse under the label of “Global Warming.” This nomenclature, they eventually discovered, wasn’t the best way to promote the alarmism among the populace for which they hoped, for it is difficult for the average person, relying only upon his senses, to feel in his bones that the Earth was inching ever-closer toward its incineration while he is experiencing for himself winters with historically-unprecedented cold temperatures. “Global warming,” as potentially ominous as it may strike the ears of many, simply couldn’t move people in the ways in which endless anecdotal evidence moves them.

So these secular millennialists decided to revisit their marketing strategies. As if overnight, they opted to replace “Global Warming” with…“Climate Change.”

The move was a sensible one. “Climate Change” simultaneously served two purposes: on the one hand, the term “climate,” precisely because it is not a term used all that often by the average person, sounds sufficiently scientific: the climate is a subject for experts. On the other hand, radically unlike the idea that the planet is on its way toward becoming an ember, that the climate is forever undergoing changes, and often fairly abrupt, dramatic changes, is self-evident.

What conservatives and other Armageddon skeptics must do, though, is change the narrative by selecting terms that lay bare for all with eyes to see the Climate Changers’ central claim for what it is:

The weather is changing.

The Global Warmists-turned-Climate Changers wax hysterical from the rooftops over the fact that the weather changes.

It is the omnipresent fact that the weather changes that (allegedly) has the alarmists up at night.

It is the phenomena of changes in the weather that the left would have us believe constitute the biggest existential crisis facing the planet.

Now, there isn’t a single soul wailing and gnashing over “Climate Change” that would so much as think of substituting “Weather Change” for his crisis of choice. The reason for this is as obvious as, and has everything to do with, the self-evident nature of the subject itself:

The weather is and has always been incessantly changing.

In fact, inasmuch as the term “weather,” being but a short-hand term for a manifold of meteorological phenomena, practically by definition implies variation. “Weather” is like the term “universe” in that it refers to the totality of a complex of ever-changing things.

Moreover, unlike “climate,” “weather” is about as mundane a term as any. Everyone knows about the weather, and it doesn’t require a degree in climatology or geo-science to recognize that some days are sunny and warm, other days snowy and cold, etc.

When we identify the subject under consideration here for what it is by calling it Weather Change, the position of the alarmists is reduced to the absurdity that it has always been.

But in order to accomplish this end, conservatives need to first be willing to take that first step and create their own narrative—one that reflects reality.