Who's behind The Hoax/Plot/Conspiracy?

Those are actually your words, not mine. You're using religious language to make it appear unscientific, when nothing I've said has made this "religious" in anyway. His peers gave scientific reasons for rejecting his work. You're incredibly desperate to make it appear unreasonable to question this man's association with a denialist think tank and his poorly done scientific research. What's ironic is that you ignore the vast amount of science that supports human-influenced global warming and have faith in this one man's views and claims. Who's religious here?

Sure they did. I'm just going to trust someone who's being paid by a denialist think tank.

 

I concede he's incorrect in there being no differentiation between meteorology and climatology.

Psychopathy and sociopathy are the same to some, too.

 

James Hansen who started all of this alarmism is not a climate scientist.

 

As an "Advisor" it isn't even clear that he was to be paid and since he was forced to resign 3 weeks after joining I doubt he had even received his first paycheck, if he was.

 

Young people are too naive and trusting to understand how an open conspiracy works. I will explain it with an example they may be open to, using bad corporations to prove the point.

Let's say that there's only 5 or so people who have set up cell phone towers. It costs them nothing to enable text messages, but they start charging for text messages anyway because so long as none of the 5 corporations ruin it for anyone else, they can all make money off of charging for text messages. Now, do they need to get into a smoke filled room and say "bwahaha, text message plans, what do you say old boys?" No, they don't. They don't have to discuss it with each other at all. It's human nature to just conclude that it would be a good idea, start doing it, and the other 4 companies will go and do the same thing.

Now for another example. Let's say that 95% of scientific models in a certain area were proven wrong, but you can get a lot of grant money and attention by continuing to be an alarmist. You can come up with absurd theories like "the ice got larger over the past few years, but we just started measuring the ice under the water last year and we believe it's shorter, so we may not be wrong yet." Naive young college chicks will think you're a rock star. Are you going to be a poor old dude with no college girls in his lap, accused of being "anti-science" by his peers, just because your models are closer to reality, or are you going to choose to be a well-off and respected global warming crusader?

 

Words used to not make it "religious" actions do. I'm using the correct words so you can understand why your actions are religious.

You have labeled him an apostate for associating with heretics.

His peers gave poor reason for rejecting his work. Calling the expectation that models and observations should be consistent an error isn't scientific at all. Its not even correct.

Well you are obviously? The editor comes out with their statement that they rejected it on sound scientific ground and that is good enough for you. You take no time to actually read and understand the reviewers comments to know if its true of not you simply take it at face value. That is no different than someone taking the priest at their word instead of reading and understanding the text for themselves.