WHY Climate Science Is A Textbook Example Of Groupthink

REMARKABLE essay. Nails the foundation stone that drives the global pandemic of ‘climate change’ hysteria. And it’s name is “groupthink”


“Alarmist climate science is a textbook example of groupthink in action…
Ideological reinforcement where they end up endorsing positions far more extreme than the ones they started with…Safety in numbers.”

Watts Up With That?

In groupthink, organizations value consensus more than free thought. The emphasis on consensus leads to group polarization, in which a group’s positions become more extreme than any individual would come up with. Alarmist climate science is a textbook example of groupthink in action.

Guest post by Paul MacRae

A while ago, I received an email from a friend who asked:

How can many, many respected, competitive, independent science folks be so wrong about [global warming] (if your [skeptical] premise is correct). I don’t think it could be a conspiracy, or incompetence. …  Has there ever been another case when so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?

The answer to the second part of my friend’s question—“Has there ever been another case where so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?”—is easy. Yes, there are many such cases, both within and outside climate science. In fact, the graveyard…

View original post 2,459 more words

The Climate Alarm Death Knell Sounds Again

Burn more coal – cool the planet! Ahhh the bitter irony for climate alarmists.

Watts Up With That?



Currently, details are few, but apparently the results of a major scientific study on the effects of anthropogenic aerosols on clouds are going to have large implications for climate change projections—substantially lowering future temperature rise expectations.

In a blog post from the Department of Meteorology of the University of Reading, Dr. Nicolas Bellouin describes some preliminary results from a research study he leads investigating the influence of aerosols on cloud properties.  The behavior of clouds, including how they are formed, how long they last, how bright they are, etc., plays a very large role in the earth’s climate system, and is considered the weakest part of global climate models. The climate model cloud deficiency results from a combination of scientific uncertainty about cloud behavior, as well as the modeling challenges that come from simulating the small spatial and temporal scales over…

View original post 691 more words

Colleague says EATEN possibly a real service to polar bear conservation

“Climate Change”. What a wonderful noun gifted to those who feel morally compelled to use it as a means of foretelling hyper-alarmist climate fiction, devoid of any fact or reason, other than overheard climate models, in order to express their higher morality and “save the planet” virtue.

Note to Douglas Clark,

The climate always changes. The trickery and deception begins here. Whether it’s cold, hot, wet, drought, flood or fire – it’s all “Climate Change”!

Your angered and eager use of “climate change denial”, born out of “holocaust denial”, is used purely to ostracise and shame anyone who doesn’t conform to your catastrophic belief system. Ultimately this discredits you as an objective journalist and places you, not as an individual, rather, part of a groupthink herd, safe in the company of the mob.
This is your right, and i respect your need for protection of a group. That is to say if you are unable to think and fend for yourself.

I believe in “climate change” too. But unfortunately not on scientific grounds in order to prove or disprove a theory. Why? Because as long as the climate changes, “Climate Change” is proven! It’s a Null hypothesis.

Meanwhile, “Global Warming” has been dropped like a hot potato because it is too precise and can be refuted by facts (I.e no global warming, at all, over past 20 years, despite record emissions.) Thus “Climate Change” suits the purpose much better – hot, cold, drought or rain, it’s all ‘climate change’.

Ergo, think about this statemebt from a scientist who is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century – Karl Popper.

“A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.” (Aka Climate Change)

See here for examples:



My last post, on the up-coming International Bear Conference in Anchorage, presents the perfect backdrop for highlighting a wonderfully unbiased review of my polar bear attack thriller, EATEN, penned by a prominent Canadian polar bear researcher who is utterly convinced that future sea ice loss is the biggest threat to the species (and a former student of the grand-daddy of all polar bear researchers, Ian Stirling).

June summer reading sale image3

Here is what polar bear-human interaction specialist Douglas Clark had to say about my novel in his Amazon review (note I did not send Doug a review copy because he did not request one – he bought it himself – so I had no idea this was coming):

Thought-provoking, and possibly a real service to polar bear conservation

His detailed thoughts on the book below.

Thought-provoking, and possibly a real service to polar bear conservation 

Douglas Clark
Associate Professor and Centennial Chair in Human…

View original post 705 more words