BenB You raise some interesting parallels , though they are getting very well worn.
In another thread someone asked if I could see the irony in what I was saying. I would ask you the same, specifically about science by mandate. You can do a lot of the field experiments that show a lot of the basis of AGW. It is not conducted in clandestine labs, it is open source and freely available.
Modern media ensures all get a voice now, even when the supporter base is very small. This voice can have a wide impact , and requires little "seeding" to get going. There are many interesting fields of study on the modelling of "agents" that can show how this is achieved. In fact just look at the Tea Party song book to see how it is in action in politics
However it is this "wide" voice that shows the lack of substance in the claims of many of the anti AGW's. There has been no smoking gun , let alone a bullet. If there was a profit to be gained by "exposing from the inside any structural organising of a predetermined message" than that would have happened by now. If there was an overarching con than it would easily be disproved.
However for all your and other protestations that it's a con and that it is in demise you will need to show facts that this is the case. That means show the science that disproves it and then put that science to the wide voice.
Don't hold your breath BenB. Your side has a long way to go to try and dispel the basic facts.
We have a carbon based economy. Our major byproduct is CO2.CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its getting warmer. The Oceans are getting warmer.
