In what way are Climate Scientists Profiting from Global Warming debate?

Question

I have seen in quite a few subjects the statement or implication that somehow climate scientists are 'profiting' from their research into global warming and its causes, can anyone provide any information and support for this?

Answer 1

Well, Jelly sure talks a great game about "follow the money," but when push comes to shove and he actually is asked for evidence, he comes up with a big fat zero.

If you REALLY want to follow the money on climate change, you will find that the money is coming from Big Oil, and going to the usual rightwing global-warming deniers ... over and over and over again.

Climate change skeptics funded by Exxon:

Acton Institute ($30,000)

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research ($200,000)

Atlas Economic Research Foundation ($50,000)

Cato Institute ($30,000)

Center for Strategic and International Studies ($145,000)

Committee for Economic Development ($75,000)

Competitive Enterprise Institute ($405,000)

Foundation for American Communications ($175,000)

Frontiers of Freedom ($233,000)

George C. Marshall Foundation (90,000)

Reason Foundation ($50,000)

... and that's just ONE oil company.

Answer 2

I really hate this particular conspiracy theory (scientists are perpetrating a massive hoax just to get grant money).  It's just completely stupid.

First off, nobody goes into science to become rich.  Scientists generally make decent salaries but unless they come up with some great invention and manage to patent it themselves (more often the university they're working for gets the much of the patent rights), they're just never going to get rich.  People go into science for the pure desire to learn and explore new things.

Secondly, climate science was around long before global warming became a hot button issue.  Climate scientists were getting plenty of grants to support themselves at the time.  They had no need to perpetrate a massive hoax to get funding - they already had it!

Thirdly, in the rare situation where there is a scientist falsifying data, he's almost immediately exposed and his career is ruined.  Falsifying data is the absolutely worst thing a scientist can do.  And this conspiracy theory requires that tens of thousands of climate scientists be falsifying data with nobody exposing them.  It's completely absurd!

There is only one piece of information you need to reveal that this conspiracy theory is wrong.  There are scientists who disagree with the consensus on man-made global warming.  For example, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Tim Patterson, etc.  None of them argue that it's all a massive conspiracy.  They might disagree the degree to which humans are causing global warming or how bad the consequences will be, but they don't claim the scientists are making stuff up for profit or to get funding.  The only people making this claim are those who love conspiracy theories and have no idea how the scientific community works.

Answer 3

They benefit in two ways.  They benefit financially as more and more money is poured into climate change research, salaries and career prospects for people in the field improve.

The other benefit is that AGW researchers can get paid to push their political ideas.  If it wasn't for climate change alarmism, researchers would have to push their political agendas on their own time.

Answer 4

It's not necessarily the climate "scientists" who profit most from the global climate change scam although their project funding heavily depends upon their agreement with the funding agency.

The real profit will go to the bottom-feeder politicians at the top of the pyramid and the con artist Texan wind-farmers.

As always, to find the truth of any government funding, follow the money.  

The funding reports are public property and must be made available, possibly for a small fee, through the G.A.O.   Here is the link to that office:  

http://www.gao.gov/

Answer 5

And apart from beren (tongue in cheek) answer, most seem to have no idea how science funding works every cent has to be accounted for.

The logic of the argument that "scientists are in it for the money" just falls in a heap with even a little knowledge, what’s to be gained, most scientists are into their work for a life time.

The concept of people who are totally into the research they are doing, people who work weekends and late for no extra pay would fake their results for extra funding, funding from a govt that has given little support to GW study, one of the worst sins in science is to be found to be faking your results, it is a career ender, yet for this argument to be true then most of the scientists in the field of climatology would have to be faking across a couple of dozen countries as well as a number of related fields like glaciology, astronomy and archaeology.

While it might be possible to bribe a few, they would be most likely be past retirement and no longer care or from countries that have a long history of not paying their scientist much or in some cases nothing, like the Russians, the only scientists that I can think off that match that profile are scientists like Arthur Robinson and Habibullo Abdussamatov but they are on the denier side of this debate.

Answer 6

Where do climate scientist get funding for their salary, their equipment, their travel, their assistants?

They receive money from a variety of sources including governments to deliver data and opinions.  To continue receiving this funding, they need to make sure their opinions are the one the financiers desire.  There's BILLIONS of dollars given to climate scientists every year to conduct research.  The researchers may not be getting rich, but they're certainly interested in sustaining their quality of life without having to get a real job.

Answer 7

I wouldn't necessarily say climate scientists, or even scientists in general, are profiting big time.  However, I would say money is a huge motivator of what happens. And once again, Dana oversimplifies.  He is right by saying scientists don't go into the field to make millions and climate science itself was around long before it was a political hot button.  And yes, before, government grants were being allocated.  However, now that the whole concept of man-made global warming has snowballed and it's front and center in the political arena and has come under fire.  Scientists who are receiving grants to specifically study the affects of AGW have something on the line.  Do they want to see those grants terminated?  Of course not.  Those dollars have become part of their income. So obviously it's often in their best self interest that they don't come out against the entire subject of which they're studying.  Like the old addage, don't bite the hand that feeds you.  Or how about the major scientific organizations.  From an annual $5 billion allocated annually, let's say any one of them receives $200 million of that.  Is it entirely out of the realm of possibility that they'd be willing to make a statement that might allow them to continue receiving funds even though there are boatloads of evidence out there that can refute it?  If you really want to get a good idea for what a person, or organization really believes, cut the funding.  Then we'll see what the perspective really is.  Also, scientists don't need to outright falsify data in order to be deceitful or biased.  It's often the ones that cherry pick and exclude certain data to make their point or reach the conclusion they desire.  

Answer 8

Just look at the number of billionaire climatologists.  Soon they will be richer than the oil companies. </sarcasm off>

Answer 9

they get their funding by agreeing with what enviromentalist whackos and greedy politicians in powerful positions want them to agree with..if they play ball with evil orgs like the u.n. they get the big bucks, if they disagree with the u.n. they are cut off...it's quite simple really..then you have people like al gore who start up carbon credit companies that profit directly from the fraud...he needs to be arrested for what he has conspired to do. he won't even debate whether it's man made because he claims he isn't a scientist, yet he goes around explaining what it's all about in his opinion...the man is unbearable. or should i say unmanbearpigable..

Answer 10

Yes , because if there were no problem there would be no money for the study. GW is a scam to bake money.

Answer 11

I'm sure some deniers think they are getting so much research money from our corrupt government that they are buying up real estate in the Hollywood Hills and hanging out with Al Gore, all the while collecting money from their new carbon credit business.