Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy

Merriam-Webster

1. The act of conspiring together

2. a. An agreement among conspirators

    b. A group of conspirators

  Conspiracy Theory

Merriam-Webster:  a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

 

The definitions of "conspiracy" aren't theories. Each is a noun indicating a fact. The definition of "conspiracy theory" would require a further definition of theory, per Merriam-Webster: 

3. a. a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or  investigation

   b. an unproved assumption

   c. a body of theorems presenting a concise,    systematic view of a subject

 

Conspirator

Merriam-Webster: one who conspires

 

The key word in these definitions is "secret". Conspirators are simply involved in a conspiracy, acting together to produce an event or set of circumstances. Putting conspiracy and secret together produces an undeserved negative connotation. Many activities in society are performed by groups with unclear agendas, in private and public. Does that make them conspiracies? Perhaps not in a semantic sense. Corporations jealously withhold tactics and goals, designs, recipes and procedures; demanding secrecy of all pertinent employees. Governments are especially fond of secrets, agencies keeping information from other parts of government as well their subjects and rivals. The CIA, NSA, FBI and other acronymical offices function on secrets. Are they conspiracies and is regarding them as such "conspiracy theory"? Not generally. The classification of information as to its accessibility is considered necessary and normal in those circumstances. Revealing them can be a life-changing experience. Ask Julian Assange or Edward Snowden.

What other groups hoard or conceal information or perhaps even alter it to suit their own purposes? Is it an unprovable theory that a group whose members are closely aligned in their goals may be selective or false in the information they advance as truth? Is the use of propaganda indicative of conspiracy? At what point do the actual theories, unproven, advanced by a group become conspiracies?

Considering the international fraud of anthropogenic climate change and its remedies as a conspiracy is generally regarded as preposterous. The situation itself has been advanced by elements of the academic scientific community, a group with enormous prestige and credibility. The media has used their findings to increase digital clicks. Government at every level has seen the opportunity to increase their power. Business has jumped on findings of academia to develop new and expensive approaches to AGW. For these groups the concept of death by CO2 is a license to print money, their conspiracy doesn't need to be secret, It just has to be believable, or maybe only possible.

The fact that the predictions of the climate alarmists have yet to be even remotely accurate hasn't deterred academics, government, the media and business from assuming the worst. At the same time, the informed elites are purchasing seaside property at incredible prices. Television news presenter Diane Sawyer has just sold her beach front property on Martha's Vineyard for $23.9 million to an individual that has spent more than $100 million acquiring properties on Nantucket Island and Martha's Vineyard. Condos near the beach in Miami are sold out before being built. 

People with the money to purchase property like this have access to any information they desire. That information hasn't deterred them from investing millions in beach property that's supposedly doomed to be submerged.