We often hear the accusation that scientist and others, who don’t buy into the warming meme, are either on the take from big oil or have some other venal reason for standing against “the scientific consensus.” But a recent opinion piece in the Washington Examiner shows that it also pays well to work the consensus vein—with tenured climate professors who argue the warming meme getting $120 K plus benefits.
But this is my favorite part of the piece, and the one I think is most relevant to the point of the column—there are more abstract, but perhaps more enticing, rewards than a good salary for being part of the global warming In-Crowd. From “How the Climate Change Gravy Train Rolls,” by Max Borders:
Sometimes it’s not so much about the salary. There are a lot of ancillary benefits to being a climate catastrophist. Allow me to list some:
- People know your name. You enjoy fame.
- The New York Times writes about you. TV people interview you on the news.
- You get to wallow in rectitude as you shout your warnings to all of humanity.
- People pay you to speak at events.
- You enjoy higher status in the Guild that is higher education.
- You get more money for your department and your university than the quiet ones.
- Big wigs and corporate rent-seekers take you to lavish dinners (at least).
- Your journal articles provide fodder for the second-hand dealers and activists.
- You gain the veneration of your peers (if they buy your results).
- You’re “important” and you get to belong to elite clubs (like the IPCC).
All of this sounds pretty good to me. Once people get locked into these goodies, they have every incentive to dig in their heals. They have virtually no incentive to admit errors, revise their work or check their biases.
I believe that most scientists on both sides of this debate are in good faith. But that good faith also comes with inducements. Many on both sides now have a personal stake in the issue. Al Gore, no scientist, has literally made a fortune off this field, but I still think he believes warming presents us with great danger (although he doesn’t act like it).
Moreover, there is strong (perhaps subliminal) pressure to toe the line on the pro warming side—such as the threat of shunning, not getting tenure, not being invited to symposia, and being blackballed from writing papers in the best journals—the scientific equivalent of excommunication for heresy. (I have certainly seen instances of that in the stem cell/cloning and other debates.) I mean, look how Lomborg has been treated—and he doesn’t even deny the existence of AGW.
