but while syntax etc. might be a reason there was nothing exceptional in my post compared to other posts, no links, no signatures.
Besides, since I was commenting on an article about conspiracies it seemed potentially ironic if there was an AGW conspiracy to prevent "deniers" getting their views aired and what better way than by perverting the spam programs?
Would this be any different from the censorship in once respected scientific journals or the way in which once respected organisations with genuine environmental objectives have been taken over, as per the Militant tendency attempted take over of the labour party and all as per the methodology set out by Maurice Strong? (""If we don’t change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." )
An interesting overview here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_tavistock04b.htm
Good links David, thanks.
And some of the flaws in the logic were so obvious even I spotted them! (e.g. that not everyone employed is necessarily in the know).
Fundamentally, the idea that the more people involved the more difficult to conceal a conspiracy is a reasonable assumption but equally reasonable is that there are so many variables that a mathematical model of the sort claimed would be extremely unlikely/impossible.
What is of interest is that being generous the debunking article suggests Dr Grimes might have made a simple mistake (the silence from Dr Grimes is deafening) but it also raises the possibility that this was deliberate for some reason and the reason I came up with was that it was intended to bolster the AGW cause.
As I say, the silence of Dr Grimes is deafening.
The Oxford web site still has his article posted without apology - or shame.