Groupthink, not a Conspiracy

UPDATE AND BUMPED:  Because rationalizations over the Climategate emails continue to be published in major publications, I am bumping this back to the top.
This is from The Los Angeles Times:

So what are we to believe: that huge numbers of British and American scientists have entered into a conspiracy to dupe the world on climate change? Why? What would they stand to gain?  
UPDATE II: More rationalization.  

Original Post:
In the wake of Climategate, a number of thoughtful critics are asking, "How could this have happened?"  Some answers are in an excellent paper.  The money quote:


I think it the most damning evidence for this soft tyranny is in the work of climate scientists whose scientific integrity has led them to publish results that clearly contradict basic assumptions in AGW modeling. Yet, in their papers, they are very careful to skirt around the issue, keeping their heads down, describing their results in a way obfuscates the contradiction. They will describe their results as an individual case, with no greater implications, and issue reassuring boilerplate statements about how AGW is true anyways.

I have personally witnessed this behavior.

We are hearing a lot about how a pro-GW 'conspiracy' does not exist. I agree. What we have is a severe case of groupthink.  I urge you to read this essay (it is short and non-technical) and the excellent parallel he draws between Climategate and the Challenger disaster.


There is zero institutional incentive to disprove human-caused global warming or falsify the IPCC's hypothesis.  As President Eisenhower said, The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.