> All in order to make people feel guilty and thereby get people to reduce their usage. Once that happened there was a backlash, that backlash needed a target and the science was chosen.

Guilt -> backlash -> people reject science. That sounds an awful lot like you're saying science would drive progress but people aren't changing behavior because "you're" making them feel guilty.

It's not _just_ an engineering issue, but if you believe it is why on earth are you contributing to the politics?