> Rather than arguing against my simple, well supported conspiracy argument, you instead implied that I argued for some vast and implausible conspiracy. Why not

> 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.