Some of those people are villains. Anyone who puts their own personal gain over the good of everyone else is a bit shabby in my book.
This is
"groupthink".
The group gets tighter and tighter, closes ranks, and the biggest threat becomes anyone who disrupts things or disagrees. At this point, according to Janis, the next symptom of groupthink becomes evident: the development of stereotypes of those who don’t believe as the group does. Anyone outside of the group or who has other ideas is dehumanized and seen as a threat; labeled in simplistic, demeaning term; and attacked with ad hominum arguments. Instead of reasoned arguments, members caught up groupthink talk in increasing rhetoric and slogans.
So how does science work. Suppose you want to prove a hypothesis what is the best way? Looking for things that are consistent with the idea? or trying to find things that falsify it? If an hypothesis is sound,
it will not be possible to disprove it. Therefore, it would be entirely logical to say: "here is my idea, prove me wrong and I pay you....". Therefore what the skeptics do, trying to disprove things is entirely scientifically and ethically sound. If they can't falsify it, you have a sound theory if they can, you're in trouble. And the trouble is that antropogenic global warming as in amplified strong greenhouse effects is thoroughly disproven. But
Sandy tells you exactly why you don't know that:
Another manifestation of this is that opposing ideas are not even allowed to be reported, hence, alternative media is suppressed. In fact, found Janis, some members assume the role of protecting the group from contrary information that might threaten the group’s complacency and everyone else goes out of their way to protect the group’s consensus.
You can find these people here:
http://www.realclimate.org of course killing the popular belief is a disgrace and people who are doing that are logically a threat to the groupthink society. Therefore the call to make sceptisms about climate a criminal offense is logical. But also a very black page in the liberation of logical science from the social biases caused by the group effect.
Sandy again:
Groupthink becomes a powerful and dangerous force because its control over individuals is self-enforced. Preservation of the group and furthering it’s goals becomes the sole focus. The group becomes the ultimate authority on anything and everything. Individual free thinking isn’t tolerated.
Clearly, the end result of group think, is poor quality decisions that are based on consensus.
And that’s not the scientific process. Dr. Lawrence Krauss, chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University once told me: “Science isn’t fair or democratic. Instead of majority rule, scientific understanding evolves only as rigorous testing, observations, and measurements build a body of unrefuted evidence.”
Whenever you’re tempted to think that just because a whole lot of people believe something, that it must be true, remember the words of Nobel prize winner, Anatole France (1844-1924):
If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
Jason said:
However, I don't believe your mammoth hypothesis disproves the idea of global warming. I know your belief that it does is sincere, but your evidence is a bit circumstantial at best.
The Mammoth should be the poster child of the failure of paleo climatology to comprehend what went on in the Ice Ages. It could not have been there, yet it is. That should be enough. In reality it's only the tip of the ice berg. Lots and lots of other things that don't add up.
