> The so-called "conspiracy" of "Saudi princes", "Russian oil interests" and other "petro-moguls" is just populist claptrap basically. It's amazing that a pers

> The so-called "conspiracy" of "Saudi princes", "Russian oil interests" and other "petro-moguls" is just populist claptrap basically. It's amazing that a person can make the claim that it's ridiculous that there could be any widespread foul play amongst mainstream climate scientists - what are you, some kind of conspiracy nut? Then in the same piece, the person will turn around and point out that it's incredibly obvious that there must be widespread foul play and collusion between oil producers, Saudi Princes, the Republican Party, and Fox News. How do they do that with a straight face? Climate science is a much smaller, much more unified community with only a few major journals and a generally accepted and favorable political position. Industry, politics, media, and foreign governments have widely different and diverging goals. So they claim it's impossible that the small, similarly backgrounded group with similar goals colludes and you'd be a conspiracy nut for even suggesting that it might be possible. And at the same time, they claim it's incredibly obvious that the large, not unified, competing goals groups are colluding. How the heck do they do that with a straight face?