Who earns more money, government scientists or energy consultants?

Question

Doubters frequently attempt to impugn the reputation of thousands of honest scientists (who are concerned about global warming) around the world, by accusing (without evidence) them of spinning the data just to increase their own research funding. This accusation certainly calls into question the ethics of the accuser (is that how they operate, and thus they expect everyone else to be so dishonest?).

If money were the motivator for a PhD level physical research scientist or computer modeler, where would they likely work? In a government lab, under the fixed GS pay-scale? In private industry? Or as a consultant for an energy company?

Answer 1

Let's see - Hansen received $250,000.00 to endorse John Kerry's Presidential campaign, was a paid consultant on Algore's movie "Truth", and the movie "Day after".

He gets paid to consult on TWC.  While having the ability to prevent funding with those who disagree with him.

Power and money - two great motivaters in life.

Answer 2

IPCC energy consultants feeding at the UN trough.

Answer 3

It is the government scientists that support global warming, along with NASA and most university's, all receiving funding from the government.

Answer 4

Generally speaking you make a better salary from private industry jobs than in acadamia or government institution positions.

Really this is an incredibly stupid argument.  If a person were only interested in money, he would study computer programming and go work for Google.  He wouldn't get a PhD in climate science at all.

The problem is that much of the general public is primarily motivated by money.  For them it's all about the almighty dollar, and many will do just about anything to make a buck.  Especially deniers, whose motivation for denying the AGW theory is generally political and economical.

They assume that everyone is like them, but people don't go into science for the money.  And they don't falsify evidence and perpetrate a massive hoax in order to make it easier to obtain funding.

Anyone who thinks that millions of scientists have been falsifying evidence for decades in order to perpetrate the global warming hoax just to make it easier to get research funding even though the scientists themselves don't get a dime of the grant money...well, let's just say they're a little out of touch with reality.

Answer 5

They would be working for the government. Have you ever been to the government run DMV, for example? They are slow, mostly (mostly...) uneducated and completely inefficient. And yet, they keep their jobs and get promoted. In the private sector, they'd be fired. So what job would you take? The job where you can be slack for 8 hours a day and get promoted or a job where you actually have to work hard to keep your job? That's the government, at work. That's why they'd work for the government.

Answer 6

Where have you been lately, education is a sacred cow and most PH D's could not run a company that's why they stay and indoctrinate rather then teach.  Most educational facilities are government funded and accountability is low and results are not important.  I am sure there are scientist that are in the field for the pure science and to learn and understand however studies prove most are liberal, to me that is the telling fact.  They should be neither liberal or conservative because both side have an agenda.  By the way most are socialist, and that is why they have a negative slant towards business because they believe in the power of the state over the individual.

Answer 7

Who wouldn't want to be a feather merchant where tenure is your whole existence?

Answer 8

All smart people get fabulously wealthy lying to skinheads.  It's a highly lucrative business.