It is not that the proponents are simply mistaken—that would be forgivable. They know that they are lying: otherwise there would be no need for all the manufactured and selective evidence, the appeal to a claimed consensus (the like of which has never had a place within the scientific method), the gross attempts to censor any contrary argument, the abandonment of the essential scepticism of science, the vilification of doubters, the direction of huge quantities of taxpayers money into acquiescent “research” groups, the barrage of angled news-stories, the drama documentaries, irrelevant interpolations into editorial commentaries and on and on.
The evidence for the global warming disaster theory does not stand up to the most cursory examination, like the global cooling disaster theory that preceded it. Yet, a majority of simple souls accept that it is true, because it has been drummed into their brains by incessant repetition.
(And no, he doesn’t offer any support for his claim that the evidence does not stand up to examination.)
So what proof does Brignell have that it’s a plot? Well, he’s managed to get his hands on a “secret letter” from the Royal Society that says completely evil stuff like:
We are appealing to all parts of the UK media to be vigilant against attempts to present a distorted view of the scientific evidence about climate change and its potential effects on people and their environments around the world. I hope that we can count on your support.
Apparently this secret letter was sent to all major media outlets in the UK. This is obviously some usage of the word “secret” with which I am unfamiliar.
Brignell then formulates his law of scientific consensus:
From Galileo, through Darwin to Einstein, there is a clear law of scientific consensus;
The law of scientific consensus:
At times of scientific contention the consensus is always wrong.
So Darwin overturned the scientific consensus of his day. Brignell’s law says he was right. Cool. Except that now the scientific consensus is that Darwin was right, so Brignell’s law say he was wrong. I think Brignell needs to formulate some new rules of logic where statements can be true and false at the same time to go with his scientific consensus law.