Sometimes I wonder how the left can remain so woefully ill-informed on the subject of climate change.

Then I read articles like this piece of complete Chait that one of America’s leading liberal commentators has just produced for New York magazine and all becomes clear: because ‘progressive’ journalists who write about the environment don’t do research or due diligence — only fluffy sentiment and green propaganda.

Let me show you, with reference to Jonathan Chait’s article — excerpts from which I’ll put in italics, with my gloss below — what I mean.

 This weekend, leaders from 196 countries approved the first global agreement to limit greenhouse-gas emissions in human history. The pact is a triumph of international diplomacy shared by diplomats across the planet.

The agreement is non-binding, carries no penalties and is entirely voluntary. That’s why everyone signed: because it meant nothing — not because any diplomatic skills were necessary.

 Obama’s climate agenda has lurked quietly on the recesses of the American imagination for most of his presidency. It is also probably the administration’s most important accomplishment.

That last sentence is probably true — but only because from Syria to Russia to Obamacare to Benghazi to Common Core to the proliferation of divisive #blacklivesmatter identity politics lunacy, everything else on the administration’s watch has been an even bigger fail.

And, I'm sorry to say, it is now pointed at you.

We more or less know this, of course. It's been beyond dispute since the Snowden revelations. What most people haven't done, however, is to face the fact.

Before I get into three examples of a Weaponized Internet being pointed at you, I'd like you to understand the most common problem with this material: When I explain these things, it's almost never the intellectual aspects of it that turn people away. Rather it's the psychological aspects, and denial in particular.

If you hold to an imperative that “it can't be that bad,” or, “the US military can never do wrong,” you'll find any number of ways to conclude that I'm going too far, misunderstanding, and so on.

So, make of this as you will, but please do so honestly and do your best to avoid living along that river in Egypt.

Europe has been going demographically bankrupt for awhile now because of its falling birth rates, so the socialists who run it have come up with an absolutely amazing plan they say can't possibly fail.

They're going to solve this demographic bankruptcy and this resulting economic bankruptcy when there's nobody to do the work or pay the bills or even write the welfare checks by bringing in millions and millions of Moslems to fill in the gap.

There's just one, tiny, little, minor problem with it, and I'm not talking about the terrorism, the Sharia, the no-go zones, the attacks on Jews, or all the other fun stuff. There's just one other minor problem, which is that the people coming in don't actually work.

There’s a basic cultural difference between the Western world which is a work ethic culture, and the Moslem world which is a slave culture. And when people from a slave culture come into a country where it has generous socialism, that has generous welfare policies, they're coming there not to work. They are not refugees – they are welfare migrants.

We cannot allow this to happen in America.

The West doesn’t really want to defeat Islamic terrorism.

It responds to terrorism while ignoring the ideology. And then it roots around for “root causes” that coincidentally turn out to all involve progressive policy priorities like economic inequality and global warming.

The left sees Islamists as an anti-colonialist minority lobby rather than theocratic supremacists. Moslem Brotherhood front groups, like Communist front groups, are willing to use “useful idiots” on the left. But rather than forming a common front, Communists and Islamists hijack left-wing causes and make them their own.

So, for example, Moslems turn #BlackLivesMatter protests into anti-Israel campaigns

Can the Islamic State evolve into another Soviet Union? Yes, it could – and how often did we see American leftists take the side of Moscow or its proxies like Castro’s Cuba against the US?

The OPEC cartel is to continue flooding the world with crude oil despite a chronic glut and the desperate plight of its own members

Brent prices have tumbled $3 a barrel to below $41, US crude over $4 to below $38, as traders tried to make sense of the fractious OPEC gathering in Vienna last Friday (12/04), which ended with no production target and no guidance on policy. It reeked of paralysis.

Prices are poised to test lows last seen at the depths of the financial crisis in early 2009. The shares of oil companies plummeted in London, and US shale drillers went into freefall on Wall Street.

“Lots of people said OPEC was dead. OPEC itself has just confirmed it,” said Jamie Webster, head of HIS Energy. Instead, there is now a new world order of three and only three oil superpowers. Guess who they are…