Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonSamurai
Valid science is not easily manipulated, but people, particularly the general public are easily manipulated. You will always have two or more opposing scientific views as A) science is not perfect B) science is ever changing and evolving C) complete consensus never ever will exist among humans D) you will always find someone who disagrees, particularly if you offer them money to. Usually though they will each have their own different evidence in a lot of these arguments.
If the science was done correctly, motive is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if the science was not done properly.
|
You are incorrect. The motive came first. Then the trick was to work out how to use 'science' to sell the idea convincingly.
Global warming started as a political agenda to address the issue of more fairly distributing wealth and technology across the planet. The tricky part was how to achieve that end result without letting the masses know that that was the real agenda.
Global Warming was the answer they came up with. You blame the wealthy, technologically advanced countries for any extreme climatic changes, even though most of those changes are naturally occurring phenomena as the planet continues to evolve, and then you try and guilt those technologically advanced countries into financially compensating the less advanced countries.
This is not a new idea. As I said in an earlier post, I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where this very scenario was addressed. The only surprise to me was that it took them such a long time to get the idea off the ground.
