What do you call a report on climate change prepared by 830 scientists around the world?
No, this gentleman is not attempting to describe the arrangements that enable these scientists to share their conclusions with each other. Nor is he describing the rigours of the scientific method, and the contribution of peer reviewed papers.
Group think is a “put down” of experts that global warming sceptics don’t agree with.
It is puzzling how anyone could use the term in the context of the consensus of 97% of scientists who advise us about global warming and its causes.
The term was coined in 1972 by a social psychologist to describe how a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgment”.
In the case of climate scientists, sceptics have identified these group pressures as:
- a desire for government grants (wealth), or
- a seeking of international recognition (fame), or
- the approval of other scientists (flattery), or
- a combination of all three.
In effect these sceptics are doing their utmost to discredit the message by shooting the messengers.
Considering the individuals who used the term – well-to-do business men with a large stake in “business as usual” and who have the ear of the Australian Conservative Government – we have titled this blog
“If the cap fits, wear it!”
Their comments really apply to themselves and not their targets.
Why bother with the opinions of Australian sceptics on the issue of climate change? Only because our Conservative Government pays attention to what is happening there. Canadian scientists may soon find that the description “group think” is used on them.