Ultimately, if _IF_ global warming is made up (and this is obviously very unscientific—an unscientific opinion, if you will, which is a tautology—inversely, a scientific opinion would be an oxymoron) and thus realpolitik, but at least not the myopic left/right politics of the day. The only way this could be is to catalyze the general public into weaning itself off an energy source that endangers its own safety, as has been demonstrably seen during the energy crises of the 1970s. It is not ethical to dupe the public. Sure. But is it still so bad if it is being done for their own good, because they are too dumb to do it on their own? Are they not hurting themselves by trying to thwart efforts to modernize energy? This is a rhetorical question, by the way.
>>16147861>/sci/ - Philosophy and Ethicsthis is the strangest board, every single thread is a philosophical question that inevitably devolves into everyone saying philosophy is un-empirical and therefore not relevant.
Why is this thread on /sci/?Sage
>>16147893I don’t know why this is the subject de jure here. I guess because your fat uncle Albert saw a graph on his Facebook feed.
>>16147882It devolves into "you can't prove anything exists" as every philosophical discussion does.
>>16147900Ironic
>>16147861but I didn't have global warming.
