America has always wrestled with big ideas, but some ideas grow so large and so untouchable that questioning them is treated like heresy. Today, human-caused climate change has reached that level. We are told the science is “settled,” that the debate is over, and that anyone who dares to ask questions is a “denier.” That sounds less like science and more like groupthink.
The term groupthink was coined in 1972 by psychologist Irving Janis. It describes what happens when the desire for harmony inside a group overrides critical thinking, leading to bad decisions. We have seen it before in politics, like the Bay of Pigs, and in science, like the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. Each time, the so-called consensus drowned out dissent until the evidence finally exposed the failure. The question before us now is simple: are we watching the same thing play out with climate change?
The signs are everywhere. Scientists such as Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, and John Christy, who dare to challenge the narrative are mocked or ignored. Media outlets churn out stories of catastrophe, tying every hurricane, every drought, poor school outcomes, and even every sip of gin and tonic to climate change, whether the data supports it or not. Steven Koonin, a former Obama scientist, has shown in government reports that many of these claims are exaggerated, with no long-term trends proving an increase in extreme weather in the United States. Yet the drumbeat never stops, because money and power keep it going.
Follow the money and you find billions in government grants flowing only to those research ideas that support alarmist claims. Follow the media and you find more than 500 outlets trained to insert climate change into every story, even when there is no evidence. Follow the politics and you find subsidies and mandates that punish consumers and reward special interests. Groupthink thrives in environments where dissent is silenced, careers are threatened, and only one story is allowed to be told.
The cost of this groupthink is not theoretical; it hits every Alaskan family. With renewable mandates and subsidies, we are being forced to pay twice. First, through higher taxes that underwrite billions in subsidies. Second, through higher electricity bills from intermittent energy sources that are expensive to install and require costly backup systems. In California, mandates for 50 percent renewable energy by 2030 are already pushing rates far beyond the national average. If you think that cannot happen here, look at the federal subsidies propping up “green” projects in Alaska, from Cook Inlet tidal experiments to wind farms in Kotzebue. Villages already paying some of the highest electricity costs in the nation cannot afford to gamble on unstable and unsustainable energy schemes.
And it does not stop at energy. Federal regulators have already used climate justifications to stall or block what are considered non-renewable resource development in Alaska, from oil and gas and coal projects to critical minerals. Our fisheries are next in line. When every shift in ocean temperature is blamed on climate change, it gives bureaucrats an excuse to regulate first and ask questions later. Fishermen and processors in places like Bristol Bay or Kodiak cannot afford to be pawns in a global climate agenda.
And for what? Wind and solar cannot stand on their own without massive taxpayer support. They need backup gas plants, new transmission lines, and expensive, ill-suited, battery storage solutions just to keep the grid from collapsing. The result is less stability, less affordability, and more risk, all while politicians congratulate themselves for “going green.”
Meanwhile, proven solutions are cast aside. Nuclear power produces round-the-clock, zero-emission electricity. France relies on it, with far lower carbon output than Germany, which rushed into renewables and paid the price. Small modular reactors are advancing quickly, cutting costs and build times, and Alaska is well-positioned to lead in this area given our remote communities and military bases. Clean coal, with polution mitigation and scrubbers, can provide affordable baseload power with reduced emissions while keeping Americans employed in industries that built this country. Both of these options are reliable, scalable, and tested, yet they are ignored because they do not fit the political script.
The price tag of this groupthink is staggering. Trillions in global spending. Higher costs for consumers. Whole industries reshaped to fit a narrative. And a media establishment, and even so called social-media influencers, that treat any question or experiment as blasphemy. That is not science, and it is not how free societies should make decisions.
History teaches us that groupthink collapses under the weight of reality. Eugenics did. The global cooling scare of the 1970s did. The only question now is how much damage this climate hysteria will do to our economy, our energy grid, and our way of life before it collapses as well.
Alaskans, like all Americans, deserve honest, data-driven science and rational policy. We should never be afraid to ask questions. We should never silence or ridicule debate in the name of consensus, profit or conspiracy theories. And we should never force working families to pay twice for power they can barely afford while better alternatives sit unused. True science requires skepticism, experimentation, and trial and error. And true leadership requires the courage to stand against the tide of groupthink, no matter how loud or well-funded it may be.
Originally published on Substack: https://kevinjmccabe.substack.com/p/climate-change-hype-the-greatest