I don't think I implied that common sense should triumph over scientific education. If I did, I certainly did not mean to. I believe that common sense has to accompany education and when it doesn't, as in the case of the CRU scientists, it's because they've at least partially bought into the notion that they, by dint of their education, are superior to those with less education. I'm not taking an anti-intellectual position but an anti-elitist one. I should have made that more clear.

Scientists are as prone to this as anyone. Perhaps they’re more prone to it because, as Dunbar found, they often cling to a specific answer to a question

Just like anyone else. Which does not make them more prone to error, as you asserted, but only equally prone. The second part of the assertion, that they then speak mainly with people likely to share the same training and biases, is true in any specialized field, whether it's science, football, or political commentary. A problem worth addressing, in any such case.

And isn’t that odd? Those of us who aren’t scientists figured this out a while ago.

That's another false generalization; some people (whether scientists or not) seek out the benefit of an alternate viewpoint, others don't. I realize your point is to zing the CRU scientists, in the end, but the implication that common sense would serve them better than scientific education is just misleading. (And condescending.) They're not victims of their own education, they're doing science badly. (Starting with the decision that their research didn't need to be verified independently.)

I don't disagree with Dunbar, though–in fact, you'll note that I'm providing an outside viewpoint on this very post, to point out the assumptions and biases that you may not have noticed.