I constantly run into people claiming to understand science and are eager to post links to their references. The most used is Skeptical Science that i do not hesitate to call a hoax, – simple, short and easy to remember. Also “scolar-type” web pages are referred to as legitimate, up to date, relevant and true, or factual, if you like ..
Moving on, now this pops up; http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
Of course i know when i smell a rat, i am probably getting a rat, – and what do you know? This is the same stuff the scientists working for the IPCC did, ref.: Climategate 1, 2 & 3 etc. And this peer-review-ring, is the same principles that is applied in the web farming cases i have investigated since 2006.
“Web Farming” in this setting means, in principle, to create a vast number of webpages, each webpage are used as a reference to the previous one etc. Linking in adjusted Wikipedia pages, fake bios, fake science, fake peer-review papers, fake “debunk” with fake references on fake pages with persons with fake bios (all experts and scientists, of course) etc. The reason for doing so is to create a “smokescreen”, if you will, or a “wall” of fake science, to make it as hard as possible for anyone to find the real and undistorted facts, to confuse the public about the science, and in the end to create an illusion of consensus.
This time i am going to direct your attention to the video posted on this webpage;
Lunch Keynote (Wednesday) 09.07.2014 By Lord Christopher Monckton- At the timemark 01:03:40. There you’ll see another methood the alarmists are using. Also notise it doesn’t come cheap. On top of that, the alarmists have the audasity to blaming the realists for having so much money (big oil, big lobbygroups, Koch-brother etc.)
The argument is, if you have a lot of money, of course you can’t be right. But really, who is it that has a lot of money? (currently this fraud is costing us 1 billion usd each and every day, 7 days a week) And are they right?
On the same page you’ll also find other interesting videos, the one with Roy Spencer do explain why the alarmists are corrupt and why they have corrupted the science.
What is it with the peer-reviewed reports you alarmists don’t understand? No, it doesn’t mean cross references to hoax-pages on the net, spun in the same way IPCC “scientists” per-reviewed each other papers. No, it doesn’t mean made up stuff. No, it doesn’t mean web farming giving each others pages the impression of being peer-reviewed by hoax with false bios. Fake pal-review like Cook Et. Al 97% hoax will be called out, using Wikipedia to create the impression of being honest and sincere does nothing either, except ruin the reputation to Wikipedia, is it really this hard? Ok, that was a silly question, of course it’s not hard, just a lot of work to create all this hoax.