“A social movement is a loosely organized effort by a large group of people to achieve a particular goal, typically a social or political one . This may be to carry out a social change, or to resist or undo one. It is a type of group action and may involve individuals, organizations, or both.” Wiki.
I’d say the covid event/ bandwagon is definitely a type of social movement. “Climate change science” has loads of similarities.
I do wish this advice was the modus operandi back in late 2019, up to the present. It seems this sentence partly explains the entire pandemic response by the elite.
Plus, there’s a difference between expressing one’s frustrations, and “taking them out” on others, IMO.
"Science"cannot be removed from politics, or society. Science is undertaken by people, who live in society, and under the auspices of government (paid for by taxation of the masses) and businesses (also paid for by the money of the people). They are interdependent, interconnected and intertwined. Science is absolutely influenced by politics and society, and by social movements themselves, as are scientists. “The Science” regularly becomes an arm or tool to turn society in a certain direction, all the time. IMO, that’s one of its main activities. I believe that is also the case with the topic of global warming. The parallels with the “covid science” movement are glaring.
Are there specific guidelines for this Science and Nature topic? All I found was this:
About the Science & Nature category
(Replace this first paragraph with a brief description of your new category. This guidance will appear in the category selection area, so try to keep it below 200 characters.)
"Use the following paragraphs for a longer description, or to establish category guidelines or rules:
- What should topics in this category generally contain?"
But at the top, it just starts with the sentence:
“I know there are a lot of climate change skeptics on here…,” “I believe …,” " I believe…" etc.
And then a link to a “World’s hottest day since 1884” article.
1884 is a long way from the “beginning of Earth’s history” and it is clearly insufficient evidence to prove global warming, as the time frame is simply far too short. By quite a long way.