"Jay Maynard" wrote:

No conspiracy needed, just observation. A scientist who sees what happens to
others who try to publish disproving research is not going to be inclined to
try it himself. The rest of them just know that their grants depend on
supporting the concept.

Right: they're all cowards lying for money. Very believable.

You need to check the crowds you're running with.

I don't believe in guilt by association.

Nobody is right 100% of the time.
Only when they agree with you, right?

I'm not right 100% of the time, either. OTOH, when I see scientists
excommunicated (and I use that word quite deliberately) for daring to
publish in opposition to the idea that man is somehow wrecking the global
climate, my hackles go up.

1) Who's been excommunicated, and by whom? Let's see some hard evidence.

2) Apparently, you don't know how reputations are made in the modern
scientific world. By going along with the crowd? No; by publishing something
new that changes established theory.

3) You are still dodging the central flaw of your conspiracy theory: that
tens of thousands of scientists and their professional associations are
perpetrating a hoax. That is simply nuts, for the same reason all such
conspiracy theories are nuts.