Libs say anti global warming scientists are bought and paid for but where is the real money in global warming?

Question

Libs say anti global warming scientists are bought and paid for but where is the real money in global warming?

Answer 1

Last time I looked, the energy sector and auto industries were making some pretty big bucks as they continue to help emit CO2.  But when you compare that with the $100/month (rough estimate) it costs to host the realclimate.org web-site, it's pretty clear that those climate scientists (on fixed government salaries) over there are raking in the cash ;-)

Answer 2

Clearly there are alarmists that are having questions pulled without good reason.  I just answered this from a similar question that was removed but thought I would paste it here since it sort of applies.  

I am a geologist and environmental consultant.  I work with very liberal geologist (most are conservative however) and you might expect that they might be swayed into global warming gloom and doom.  In fact, interestingly, I don't know a single one that believes humans are responsible for harmful warming.  The consensus clearly exists only in the minds of the alarmists as well as certain politicians and in the political appointees assigned to the head different "scientific" groups.  Clearly, it is unsettled.  The problem is they don't want debate.  Facts can be inconvenient and get in their way.  Instead, they seek to push their agenda by proclaiming it is already decided.  They say "We are right.  We know best.  Trust us.  We want to save the world.  If you doubt us, it must be because Big Oil has influenced you" or some other nonsense.

Answer 3

Dr James Hansen gets his money from awards like the Heinz Environment Award($250,000)

and the Dan David prize($333,000

http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2007/502....

and other awards that raise the fees that he gets for speaking or lectures.

plus as a adjunct professor get him fees when he speak at collages

http://www.energybulletin.net/22996.html

World Wildlife Fund award

national wildlife federation conservation achievement award.

roger revelle medal

do you think that scientist travel around the country and speak on the own money

there are big fees that a person like him gets.

and the more well known you are the higher the fees for being a  speaker you get.

and he is a very good at what he does even though he has no degrees in any climatological field.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.h...

(note that if he was anti AGW the pro AGW people would claim he was not qualified, talk about a double standard)

and this is a scientist that in the 70s claimed that we were going into a ice age

now he claims global warming

i guess he just follows the wind  hot or cold.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/edito...

Answer 4

I've not heard that scientists are paid off.

Maybe a serious nationwide shift in how we produce and use energy would take business away from some companies.  For example, oil companies, if they weren't ready to diversify into other kinds of energy production.  Maybe also car companies if they are unwilling or unable to manufacture more efficient vehicles.

Maybe it would give more business to companies that build windmills or research solar power.

Maybe just shifting away from the way things are would be difficult.  Perhaps this changes would require us to work.  Maybe politicians believe that this would be inconvenient for some people.  Maybe politicians think the voters wouldn't like this.  Of course, they want to keep voters happy.

Answer 5

The only grants seem to be for global warming.

Answer 6

The real money is in research grants being handed out to alarmist scientists. They know the game that must be played to keep from having to get a job ;-)

Answer 7

research grants pay for research and sometimes grad student stipends - scientists are paid by the university, government agency, or corporation they work for - not research grants.

skeptical scientists receive research grants as well - all richard lindzens work at MIT recieves governement grant money.

Answer 8

With 40 billions, the money is in "Clean Development Mechanisms".

The world would not wait American debates to end to take action.

www.unfccc.int

Decisions are transparent and discussions webcast.

Answer 9

Who pays you isn't the only factor.

Why they pay you and what they pay you for is also important.

The oil company pays faux scientists significant sums to create uncertainty and doubt through obfuscation of science.  They are paid exclusively as mouthpieces or specifically to run research for them tailored to their results (much the same as big Tobacco used to).

Most environmental scientists are paid by the people of various nations to carry out research.  They get paid regardless of their results and they are finding a mountain of evidence that AGW is happening.

So the implication that you're making isn't accurate.  The problem with the big oil mouthpieces isn't so much that they're being paid... it's that they're making things up along the way to confuse people and create debate when there really isn't any.

That's a problem whether they're being paid or not.

Answer 10

While it is true that some scientists are paid large money for studying global warming they are pikers compared to the federal and state governments. In 2006 the total spent by corporations was 36.5 million dollars. The US government alone spent 4.5 billion. So I guess you can't trust global warming scientists because they are bought and paid for.