> Rather than arguing against my simple, well supported conspiracy argument, you instead implied that I argued for some vast and implausible conspiracy. Why not just go for broke and act as if I claimed Phil Jones was behind 9/11?
If you're claiming or implying, as you have been until now, that 'conspiracies' are the only reason that the current scientific consensus is still standing, then it has to be a vast conspiracy, no?
> Regarding McIntyre, whether or not he made a major improvement to the existing record or a minor incremental one, the point is that he is correct. A crackpot is a person with wild and incorrect theories completely unsupported by evidence.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. We can argue back and forth as to whether he's a crackpot or not but all we'd be doing is arguing about the definition of the word. (And it would remain a matter of opinion and not fact!)
It is, however, true that his more substantial allegations practically require a widespread conspiracy, or something similarly dramatic, within the current consensus in order to be correct.
If you're claiming or implying, as you have been until now, that 'conspiracies' are the only reason that the current scientific consensus is still standing, then it has to be a vast conspiracy, no?
> Regarding McIntyre, whether or not he made a major improvement to the existing record or a minor incremental one, the point is that he is correct. A crackpot is a person with wild and incorrect theories completely unsupported by evidence.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. We can argue back and forth as to whether he's a crackpot or not but all we'd be doing is arguing about the definition of the word. (And it would remain a matter of opinion and not fact!)
It is, however, true that his more substantial allegations practically require a widespread conspiracy, or something similarly dramatic, within the current consensus in order to be correct.