Do climate scientists earn lots of money?

Scientists are rewarded for doing and publishing work that is subsequently used by their colleagues; scientists that don't publish or don't do work that anyone cares about will end up being paid less. It's certainly not a matter of whether or not you "support" global warming--that is an absurd idea. You might believe that it's "politically correct" for scientists to publish papers that lent support to the theory of AGW, but the previous administration actively tried to stifle scientists work on the subject--yet the overwhelming amount of scientific work during that time period still supported the theory of AGW. Don't you think that a company like Exxon-Mobil (that makes PROFITS of over one hundred million dollars PER DAY) would compensate a scientist beyond his or her wildest dreams if they could discover "proof that climate change is bogus"? Of course they would, as would every coal company, the tar sands people, etc. etc.

It is certainly true that scientists can make very good money, and senior researchers typically make between $100-200K. However, that's actually small potatoes to what they can make in the financial sector. It's amazing how ignorant people are of the value of climate data and forecasts--traders would LOVE to get their hands on government data before it's released to the public. The weather derivative market is in the tens of billions of dollars and if a climate researcher wants to work in the finance industry he or she can make many times what they can doing academic research.

The present state of academia around the US is not very good. The University of California, which has had the reputation of being the best university system in the world, is facing very hard times. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, perhaps the foremost oceanographic institution in the world, the place where Charles David Keeling (of Keeling Curve fame) was given the job of taking CO2 measurements (the cornerstone of AGW research), is closing its library next year due to budget problems.

Personally I returned to school a few years ago to start work on a Ph.D. in climate science. By doing so, I gave up approximately $400,000 in salary that I would have made if I'd continued working doing R&D in the defense industry. I finished the doctorate a couple of months ago, and am now looking for full-time employment. I would be overjoyed to start at a salary close to what I was making six years ago with a Master's degree. This idea that we're in it for the money is insulting and wrong.

2

Always interest to see a denier booger put some lies in black and white

Average salary for an Australian research scientist is in the range of 47k to 90k not 104k and no a fence to firemen but who (other than a weak conman) would compare a basic fireman to a PhD lecturer. Why not compare the PhD to at least a fire Chief, pretty simple really if he did the con he is try to pull here would not work. As for the money issue as I have said before scientists with the sort of physics backgrounds that climate scientists have can move pretty freely to much higher paid positions in military research, groups like DSTO (in Australia) but the US and others have similar organizations. these groups are always trying to recruit more scientists with mush higher pay and conditions. That many scientist don't want to do this sort of work even for 50-100% more salary should tell deniers something about about many scientists interest in money over morals.

The pathetic comparisons continue later in the article, comparing a law lecturer to a working climate scientist, why I wounder, not compare one working professional (a scientist) to another a lawyer or a Doctor, again the reason is painfully obvious, both of the latter professions earn several times what a working climate scientist, are deniers really sucked in by this childish BS.

And unlike the blogger I will back what I said with some info

http://www.earthworks-jobs.com/climate/sepa11111.h...

or this

http://www.earthworks-jobs.com/marine/nocs11091.ht...

In this one there is a range of salary (depending on experience) the highest possible is 48K Pounds which is around 75,000 dollars (US)

Postdoctoral salaries are down around 40K

http://www.higheredjobs.com/details.cfm?JobCode=17...

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the average salary in the US for a climate scientist is $88,010, $16,000 below the bloggers figure, around 10% of salaries are up around the 130K mark but again compare that to the sorts of money the two fields the blogger tried to use as a comparison Medicine and the Law, the top 10% of either field would earn far more.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8535579_salary-range-atmo...

The other argument deniers try to use "it's a gravy train" creating lots of new jobs, yes it is a growing field compared to other sciences but it is also a new field as deniers so often remind us, only a few decades, old most other fields are long established, anything new will need more people as the demand grows, a good comparison would be computer programmers if you went back to the 70s you would find very few, today computers have grown greatly and so has the need for programmers.

The only fact I can see about your link, is that it contains few facts.

Hmmmmm I guess I'll have to go a little in details. Scenario: My name is Bob, I'm 30 years old and a climatologist. I don't agree with global warming is caused by man but if I actually step up for myself I would be fired or get a death threat. I also need to make a living for myself, my wife and 5 kids. If I lie and say I agree that global warming is caused by man, I would be paid loads of money. Will I be stupid and get myself fired or be smart and lie for money? Scenario over. Does that explain it?

If a climate scientist would be able to prove climate is not related to human activity and pass all the usual scientific checks, it's highly likely he'd win a Nobel Prize and a promotion.

Scientists do not make a lot of money- many of them are actually PhD post grad students barely surviving.

If you want to go after money, check the CEO's of the fossil fuel industry, or major sports athletes, or even Hollywood actors.

Lot's of money? Not really.

Not anywhere near what they could earn had they taken their skills in the physical sciences and entered private industry instead.

That's the one little juicy caveat your "gravy train" article left out: what private industry scientists who work for the big tech and chemical companies make (hint - it's a crap-load).

While I would never claim that climate scientists are impervious to the draw of greater monetary gain (this is an interesting straw man the author built) the opportunity costs of entering the public sector over the private with a given skill set is pretty large.

But I hear you and the author of this piece. Scientists should probably be given less pay. With that and the piss-poor education system I can see the United States actually regressing technology-wise back to the Old Testament era. Then finally we may return to killing gay people and beating our wives while they're on their periods.

At the time a headhunter seduced me back to industry, the salary offer was 50% higher than I could have expected as a newly minted oceanography PhD. I could never have expected academia to match the yield from the stock option. The idea that lots of scientists would lie for money is bs.

Science PHDs make good money. But the article you refer to says nothing really about what you think it says. The writer says nothing about his source, and I would be curious about that. But he's trying to deceive you more than he's trying to educate you. First his definition of a "climate scientist" is any lecturer or professor of atmospheric, earth, marine and space sciences. So a lecturer in geology is a climate scientist, as is a PHD in astronomy. Yup, everyone is a climate scientist. I don't really believe an intelligent person buys into that. Do you? Then he claims without sourcing that every one of these climate scientists works only 1471 hours per year; I think that only includes salaried hours, ie in class, preparing for lectures and office hours. I seriously doubt it includes actually research in the field. How could he know how much time researchers spend in mountain streams or in the arctic? When you think about it a small bit, the whole article is pretty silly.

The salaries of all college professors may be increasing because public schools are in decline and professors are moving to private schools. PHD professors at private universities average total pay of $196K/year, compared to $165K/year at religion-affiliated universities and $149K at public universities. That's for all PHDs and I'd guess that the science PHDs are higher.

I'm not sure that the comparisons in the article is relevant. First, not all climate scientist are studying climate change. Second, the relative abundance of a profession has a lot to do with pay. There are relatively few climate scientists compared to doctors and lawyers. Third, comparing to firefighters ad teachers tells you something. These are not at all comparable to climatologists. The numbers for teachers are skewed (1800 CONTRACT hours), but grading lesson planning attending meetings with parents, administration, other teachers to develop plans for students are mostly done in addition to contract hours. It is closer to 12 hour per day (in the case of my wife), and some schools have started year around schooling and now have intersession classes to catch students up. The school systems have to pay for intersession right now, but they are trying to write it into contracts in order to reduce pay. The reality is close to 2100 hours per year but PAID for 1800. The price paid to teachers is actually inflated, but most people are ashamed of what we demand of our teachers compared to their pay, so I understand why he went with the larger number. In addition, the intellectual skills and course work for a degree in climatology is far beyond teachers, firefighters (typically and associates degree), and even law (not technical, language and argumentative skills needed - very smart and great memories help a lot, but you don't need differential equations or any advanced physics courses, or even statistics).

Medical doctors have about the same level of training (maybe a little more) except with a focus on the human body. With climatology, you need a PhD to get the big bucks, otherwise you make a project assistants wage (30k per year depending on school). Typically, you go to school about 8 years to get a PhD if your fast and then a 1-2 year post doc. That is somewhat comparable to a MD that gets a BS, MS them MD done then a residency. The MD goes a little longer.

Several prominent climate scientists stole one of my kidneys while I was sleeping. Fortunately I had a serial number inscribed on it, and the Koch brothers got it back for me.