Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
"Follow the money" is more apropos to climate catastrophism than Big Oil. You don't have to coerce people into using oil because it's so fundamental to modern living. That's not to say the industry is faultless, but there's way more conspicuous corruption with regards to coercion in the form of "going green".
Politicians don't "follow the science", they follow their constituents interests and are influenced by corporate money. Differently phrased, politicians are influenced by corporations and persuade their constituents to see things their way. People respond to incentive no matter which side of any particular topic they are on, and as such, are susceptible to corruption.
The cancer isn't Big Oils political influence, but corporatism itself. Singling out individual instances is a distraction from solving the fundamental problem at a higher level of analysis.
|
Please start a dedicated thread for this material. A worthy topic.
I stated that this sort of thing is for a different thread.
It tends to adulterate, and de-focus scientific-level communication premise for the thread.
I only wanted the uninitiated to understand that there is a spectrum of communication fidelity out in the real world, and it's very important that an individual be able to discern the difference between 'fact' and fiction.