That's not true at all, at least disingenuous. What of your standards, and Mogul's standards? Mine seem to be of a much higher standard. The only standard you or Mogul seem to adhere to is that the information contradicts mine or reinforces your worldview. That is not objective.

I am asking for veracity, confirmation, and Mogul cannot deliver. Another blog with a copy pasted quote is not veracity and confirmation. That is pathetically lazy and unthinking. A climate change denial blog that links to other climate change denial blogs that are rife with fuel industry PR influences or pseudo science (meaning not peer reviewed by scientists) is not veracity and confirmation. It is hearsay, myth, public relations, and gossip. This is not thinking or objective review.

How about some consistency? How about we stick to some modicum of scrutiny and verification? How about you or Mogul apply the same level of objective scrutiny applied to climate scientists that you do the deniers? 

Voices of dissention would be actual climate scientists with actual climate science showing evidence contrary to the consensus. If any climate scientist came up with this information and it survived peer review, he would be very famous and a household name. Not to mention we could all breath a sigh of relief and save billions of dollars better spent on other wasteful things. Science is full of skepticism, it's built in the process. The real skeptical scientist will blow up their careers if they challenge consensus with quality science, because they can change the consensus. But the other scientists have to review the new information.

Exxon has spent millions on PR about climate science. They have not spent any on actual climate science. The $ sent to actual scientists goes to scientists misinterpreting the studies that other scientists did, then giving talks on that science. It's a sham. If there was some skeptical science arrived to by Exxon funded scientists we would have seen it by now. But we haven't because it doesn't exist.

The only possible way to reconcile with this fact is to assume there is a conspiracy between the vast majority of climate scientists. And that is exactly what is happening as displayed multiple times in this thread.

So far the only voices of dissent or skeptics presented in this thread are not that, they are deniers. That is not my problem or my isssue, it is yours. If you want to equivocate between bloggers/talking heads/non-scientists and real climate scientists, that's your mistake not mine. If there is actual peer reviewed climate science that contradicts or doesn't reconcile with the consensus (there is some out there), bring it.

That I have the temerity to point out the obvious logical failings of this... I must be on the conspiracy too! Except I've not received any payments from the Carbon Trading Illuminati... yet...