Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Fact brief - Is climate science a high-paying profession?

Posted on 22 July 2025 by Sue Bin Park

FactBriefSkeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.

Is climate science a high-paying profession?

NoClimate scientists are paid for their work, but grants primarily fund research expenses, not personal gain. The field offers modest salaries relative to other accessible professions.

Scientific research is expensive and competitive. Grants fund equipment, lab space, travel, data collection, and salaries for entire teams, not single individuals. A $400,000 grant might pay a scientist less than $17,000 annually over three years.

The average yearly salary of a U.S. climate researcher is $90,000 per year, comparable to IT administrators rather than CEOs.

The claim that climate scientists fabricate results for money ignores the accountability and transparency built into grant systems. Funds are awarded based on peer-reviewed proposals, and all spending must be justified and reported.

Such specialists who are “in it for the money” would likely work in more lucrative private sectors like oil or gas industries, whose executives make $20 million per year.

Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact


This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as this one.


Sources

The New York Times The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money

Ars Technica If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong

Global Warming: Man or Myth? Scientists can also wear their citizen hats Taking the Money for Grant(ed) – Part I

ZipRecruiter Climate Scientist Salary

Glassdoor Climate Scientist Salaries

RaiseMe Climate scientists: Salary, career path, job outlook, education and more

Yahoo Finance Here’s How Rich All the Big Oil Executives Are

Please use this form to provide feedback about this fact brief. This will help us to better gauge its impact and usability. Thank you!

About fact briefs published on Gigafact

Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer "yes/no" answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact — a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all of our published fact briefs here.

Gigafact Quiz

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

There have been no comments posted yet.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2025 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us