Are climate scientists being bribed?...?

Question

If not, please provide links to scientists that dont take money either from governments or the green movements?

Answer 1

It is not that as much as there are some scientist that have no back bone.

Answer 2

Tim Ball

Fred Singer

Robert Balling

Sallie Baliunis

Dennis Avery

Ross McKittrick

Steve McIntyre

Most of these get relatively little money from contaminated sources.

Answer 3

Yes, the tens of thousands of climate scientists around the globe are all being bribed.  By Al Gore.  With the carbon credit profits he's been making.  Because that's how the scientific community works.  Their findings are for sale to the highest bidder.

Geez, give me a break.

Answer 4

Bribed is not a good word.  Threatened is more appropriate.  Yes scientists do receive funds for research.  But, they only get the funds as long as the research reaches the conclusions of the people doing the funding.

Answer 5

Skeptic argument:   scientists are in it for the money or are being bribed.

The following will show the flaws in this kind of thinking.

"These people need to look at how much professors and research scientists earn for a living.  Of all the professional fields, hard science requires the most education and has one of the lowest levels of pay."

"One of the many absurd arguments against global warming is that scientists are only in it for the money....  The idea that there are vast wealth and perks to be made from climate science is wrong, and would raise a laugh (albeit a rather bitter one) from anyone "inside""- William Connolley Ph.D.

"Money and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead author for the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on ones' time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to get grants (not that we make money off of grants either, since those of us at national labs and universities are not paid salary out of grants for the most part.) We do it because it's work that has to be done. It's grueling and demanding, and not that much fun, and I can assure everybody that there is no remuneration involved..." -RayPierre Ph.D.

"If this is a scam, then why are all of these people in on it?  The best scientists from 18 countries are saying the exact same thing.  Countless CEO's from Fortune 500 insurance companies to even oil companies such as BP are also saying man made global warming is real.  If this is a scam, it is the most prolific scam in history."

James Hansens & NASA's Earth Science sector is being mothballed

"When the administration announced its planned fiscal 2007 budget,NASA science was listed as having typical changes of 1 percent or so. However, Earth Science research actually had a staggering reduction of about 20 percent from the 2006 budget. How could that be accomplished? Simple enough: reduce the 2006 research budget retroactively by 20 percent! One-third of the way into fiscal year 2006, NASA Earth Science was told to go figure out how to live with a 20-percent loss of the current year’s funds.

The Earth Science budget is almost a going-out-of-business budget. From the taxpayers’ point of view it makes no sense.An 80-percent budget must be used mainly to support infrastructure (practically speaking, you cannot fire civil servants; buildings at large facilities such as Goddard Space Flight Center will not be bulldozed to the ground; and the grass at the centers must continue to be cut). But the budget cuts wipe off the books most planned new satellite missions (some may be kept on the books, but only with a date so far in the future that no money needs to be spent now), and support for contractors, young scientists, and students disappears, with dire implications for future capabilities" - Hansen, World Watch, v.19, #6

Despite calls of "Urgent Needs" from the NAS the satellite system is being shut down

"At a time when the Earth's climate is at the top of practically every nation's agenda, it might seem perplexing that there's a $100 million, fully completed climate-sensing satellite stored in a warehouse in Maryland. [snip] The Ukrainian government offered to lau­nch DSCOVR free of charge, France made a similar offer. But NASA's response so far has been "no thanks." [snip] Dr. Robert L. Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland, is even more blunt about the importance of DSCOVR's data: "Not knowing may kill us." -Seed Magazine

Flaw #6 There are far better ways of getting grant money.

"If they wanted more money they would say "hey we aren't sure, we need to study this more because of potential dangers."  That is not what the National Academies of 11 countries that signed the G-8 joint statement are saying.   They are saying we know the dangers, it's time to take action.  They are not stalling for more funding."

Flaw #7 - Scientists are competitive.

  "It doesn't pay to be jump on bandwagons.

Each individual scientist must compete for funding.  The best way to advance your career within the scientific community is to prove everyone else wrong.  It is their job to poke holes in each others arguments.   The fact that nobody can come up with a legitimate theory that debunks the consensus on climate change speaks volumes about the strength of the evidence."  

Flaw #8 - Scientists aren't exactly organized

"In order to perform a worldwide consipiracy you would have to organize every individual scientist in the planet.  This simply isn't possible given that most research scientists do their own fundraising and the sheer numbers of individual scientists."

Flaw #9 - History tells us it's the opposite

"Some people claim that NOAA and NASA are claiming they are creating a scare to create more funding.  This implies that the organsations are encouraging people to exaggerate the claims.  However, the evidence is just the opposite.  Dr. James Hansen, arguably the best climate scientist on the planet, told CBS in an interview that his research was being suppressed by the Whitehouse.  Dr. Rick Piltz resigned (VIDEO) from the Whitehouse due to former and current oil lobbyists editing his work.  According to a petition by the Union of Concerned Scientists,  10,000 scientists say their climate change is happening and their evidence is being suppressed.  NOAA's politically appointed head Admiral Lautenbacher certainly isn't rushing to create a scare.  In fact he's violating the law (video) which requires him to produce reports on a multiyear cycle.   Salon ran a story which describes NOAA and the Whitehouse's suppression of their scientists in more detail.  Factcheck.org has even covered CEI's spinning of the research..  The list goes on."

Flaw #10 - Peer Review works.

"Peer review works best when something is highly publicized.  The Hwang Woo-suk scandal is one such example of fraud being discovered by peer review.  If this was a fraud it would have been exposed by now.  Countries around the world are constantly reviewing each others work.  If the data was falsified the oil funded scientists would catch it in a heartbeat."

Flaw #11 - The evidence is growing

"James Hansen has been  trying to educate others about global warming since 1978.  He made predictions in 1988 that have come true.  The arguments used by the skeptics have been steadily shrinking over time.  A few examples of these are the satellite data, the sunspots, the volcanoes, etc are all arguments that have been used by the skeptics.  They have all been debunked."

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparin...

Compares IPCC  projections with observations.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

Debunking of Wall St Journal claim in article

To tell you the truth, the only bribes, I've heard of, are the ones being offered by the Heartland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute

to skeptics.  $1,000 per speech and $10,000 per paper.  This is not a scientific organization.  It's a propaganda mill for the oil companies.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Great site showing overwhelming support for IPCC findings.

Answer 6

The members of the National Academy of Sciences are 1800 of the countries best scientists, elected by their peers.  They get their money from a wide variety of sources including industry, government, and universities.

They are the closest thing this nation has to a Supreme Court of science.  No one has ever successfully accused them of bias.

Like 99+% of all scientists (whatever the funding) they agree that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change

Of course, you can say they're all lying.  This is an argument used by people who don't believe in evolution, or that we went to the moon.  But few people believe all the scientists are lying.

Answer 7

I like the idea that here we have the skeptics, almost all American Right Wingers of the lunatic fringe, amounting to less than 6% of the American population and less than 1% of the world population demanding that the scientists of the world provide proof that they aren't taking bribes to not abandon the scientific findings of the world's scientific community over the last century.  There are more victims of autism, cerebral palsy or alcoholism than there are of you.

Would it not be simpler for you folks just to issue all of the rest of the six and a half billion people some kind of identification card certifying their ideologic purity that you could check at your convenience when you meet one face to face?  It seems like it would accomplish the same ends and be a less troublesome system for everyone involved.

Answer 8

What does government funding of scientific research have to do with being "bribed"?  Absolutely nothing.

Bribery - the practice of offering something (usually money) in order to gain an illicit advantage.

You seem to have your definition of bribery confused.  When a pharmaceutical company pays for a scientist to say their product is safe (and it's not), that would be bribery.  Or if a coal mining company (for example) paid someone to confuse and obfuscate the science of global warming so that they could make more profits, that would be bribery.

But the government is NOT a for profit company that somehow makes their stock-holders and CEO rich.

Answer 9

Sure, they get their funding from somewhere don't they.

And as we have heard from the AGW crowd, if scientists are being funded by somebody that could have an agenda they must be getting paid off to twist the data to fit the sources point of view. Right??

Answer 10

I'm sure many of these scientists if not studying global warming could be making monies in other aspects of their fields. There is nothing wrong with making a living. Now if there are making a living in an immoral way yes, that needs to be addressed.

An apt analogy, I pay a plummer to come and fix my plumbing. Now if he is honest he will not invent problems and come up with expensive time consuming solutions. In my experience some people will try to cheat you but most will give you a fair service if they only can make enough to survive.

I somehow have a feeling for these scientists it is not so much about money and survival as it is about the love of science and truth. If they really wanted to make money there is plenty of sell out jobs working for tobacco, oil, and yes even governmental positions at present.

To me this question is like using swift boat tactics. Make an implicit slander in which even the thought sways enough public opinion to have its intended effect.

And BTW, Gore gave all his prize money as well as much of his personal finances in the name of dealing with the dangers of global warming. If his goal is money it seems he's going in the wrong direction. I think he knows what he is doing concerning this issue and I am whole heartedly supportive of it.