|
| I can see your point about the desire to control others as the reason for those policies. An issue I have with the claimed consensus in this matter is that it wasn’t real nor true. Many professionals did not agree with the claim and spoke up which led to job loss or other severe methods of reprimand and were silenced. Many didn’t agree and never did speak up to preserve their livelihoods. It is correct to say that the majority of professionals went along with the agenda but it is false to say that there was a consensus. If it wasn’t for these outside factors encouraging the appearance of a consensus it would have been much different and obvious that there was no consensus.
In this case the reason that the “science” kept having to change was precisely because the scientific concepts that were in opposition of the fake consensus, as known by many who lost their jobs or remained silent, was the correct science. But in general I do agree that often a true consensus does indicate the correct science. In this case though the interference from outside forces made the consensus fake. | |
|
Kennedy - cause for concern?
