Megan McCardle

I am thoroughly unimpressed with the belief that global warming scientists have been engaging in some kind of massive conspiracy to conceal the truth. First, because we seem to be able to observe things like polar ice sheets melting, which point to warming. And second, because, well, why the hell would they? I can imagine a sort of selection bias in the grant process. I cannot imagine hundreds of scientists thinking, well, I put ten years into getting my PhD--time to spend the rest of my life faking data in order to get some grant money! One, yes. All of them, no.

Its hard to understand how someone so naive could have such a prominent platform.

History is replete with instances of top-to-bottom delusion, and more specifically, how its accomplished.

McCardle is right--hundreds of scientists won't all think they should spend their careers faking data, at least not in the beginning. Then again, what young person, having completed their education, ever thinks they'll make the compromises they will all inevitably make to keep their jobs, make the house payment and otherwise keep what they have? More to the point, who among us won't rationalize those choices anyway we can?

Perhaps McCardle has never been in that situation...yet. I have. I quit a good job because I didn't want to participate in a fraud, but a half dozen of my associates--all otherwise good people, went along with it, so they could see their shares vested, so they could keep their jobs.

All one has to do to co-opt scientists (or anyone else), is threaten their survival. You reward the compliant and punish the uncompliant. Because of the obvious nature of the coercion, those that have gone-along will willingly participate in the marginalization of those that didn't.

Welcome to the real world Megan. Spend some time with us--you'll be a better columnist.