You're trying the "conspiracy" trick again. Read my post. Where is any "conspiracy," criminal or otherwise, implied? I've gone over this many times, and since it didn't stick then, I'm not going over it again.

Try and remember that the "conventional wisdom" here for a long time has been that AGW scientific skeptics are automatically suspect because of where some of their funding comes from. That the skeptics all had "axes to grind." And that pro AGW scientists were motivated only by scientific truth.

My response, many times, was that the pro-AGW factions had at least as many axes to grind, financial and otherwise, and at least as many motivations to "tilt" the arguments. I showed examples. The U.S. government alone has poured something like $80 billion into the climate change industry in the past ten years. Trillions in taxes and spending are at stake in the future. Scientific careers have been built on AGW, as well as fortunes.

The response was sneers.

There are axes on both sides. I have been proven dead right by what has been happening at the heart of the AGW organization.

Judging by the first part of your post, you seem to agree with me.