The climate conspiracy theory falls apart when you consider the effort that would be required to sustain such a scam (recruiting thousands of scientists, falsifying mountains of data) and then ask what plausible motivation there could be to continue such a vast conspiratorial effort? None, is the simple answer.
Sadly, not understanding quite how this climate science stuff works. You don\’t need to have thousands upon thousands in a conspiracy.
For you don\’t have thousands upon thousands looking at the same thing, all of whom need to be whipped into line.
Of those thousands working on climate science some will be over here writing papers on bristle cone pines. Others will be over here writing the economic models which underpin possible paths for the future. There will be a group over here looking at the influence of clouds, another there thinking about methane from peat bogs.
The current unknown in climate science is not each detailed part of it. Certainly, I\’m (for what zero amount my opinion is worth) happy with what each of those groupuscules is coming up with as the pointillist detail of their specialty. The current unknown is how it all fits together: specifically, what is climate sensitivity?
What is the sum of all of these diferrent interactions….which is the important thing we want to know in trying to work out how bad (or how trivial) it\’s all going to be.
And that working is indeed being done by a very small group. At most some hundreds and the influential people seem to be well under one hundred in number. Even if it\’s not conspiracy here, certainly it\’s possible to have groupthink…as we\’ve seen at CRU.
We don\’t need to posit a conspiracy of thousands to think that the seriousness (as opposed to the existence) is being exaggerated. We simply need to observe that one small group, working on the synthesis rather than the detailed science, has (might, could be, maybe) succumbed to groupthink.
And if we look at the history of science that really is not an unusual occurence. In fact, it has been happening all the time.
First is money. On a simple cost-benefit analysis, the best value lies in substantial and early action, as Sir Nicholas Stern\’s landmark report in 2006 found.
Ah, no. As (Now Lord) Stern\’s landmark report of 2006 asserted, on the basis of a number of potentially dodgy assumptions he made. Assumptions attacked/called into question by a number of equally, if not more so, erudite and informed economists who specialise in climate change. Like Sir Partha Dasgupta, Richard Tol and William Nordhaus. Stern is not settled science, not by a long way.