Climate scientists would make more money in other careers

At-a-glance

Some branches of science potter along on their own, under the radar. That's because their progress, important as it is, does not have wide-reaching socio-economic consequences. The only arguments you might find between those working in them will be encountered if you go to their conferences or read their publications.

Not so climate science! It has joined a list of scientific topics that one can file under, "Political Footballs". Such politicisation of climate science happened primarily due to a perceived threat to corporate profits. This perception germinated in the 1980s and early 1990s, when it looked as if serious progress might happen in order to tackle the threat of climate change.

Over the years and decades that followed, opposition to climate science became more organised. It involved two key components. Firstly there was the tangled web of corporations, political think-tanks and their public relations associates. These bodies generated, tested and circulated the messages designed to cast doubt on climate science. Secondly there were those politicians and members of the public who bought into and willingly repeated the messages to anyone who would listen.

Once climate science had become politicised, climate scientists became exposed to all sorts of attacks. These included the claim that climate scientists are only in it for the grant-money, implying that scientific research grants represent a financial windfall that the rest of us can only dream of. So let's now dig down into that claim.

Research budgets can be large, huge even, but that does not mean that a scientist can go off and buy a luxury yacht once the grant is awarded. Everything has to be accounted for. Science is expensive to do - very expensive in some cases. A research budget has to cover staff - investigators, field and lab assistants. It has to cover instruments and analyses. It may have to cover the logistics and expenses incurred on data-collecting expeditions. And every dollar of that expenditure has to be set out in detail in the grant application if it is to stand a chance of being accepted. Scientific funding takes place in a highly competitive environment.

In terms of salary, a typical mid-career research scientist works hard for around the same take-home pay to a mid-level IT administrator. There are many much easier ways for an intelligent and literate person to make money. If money was the motive, they'd be in another career. Oil and gas, for example. Most scientists instead do what they do because of its vocational nature. They are motivated to further question the world they live in and its physical properties. In that way, our understanding of the world around us is constantly improving and that's to the ultimate benefit of every single one of us.

Please use this form to provide feedback about this new "At a glance" section. Read a more technical version below or dig deeper via the tabs above!

Further details

Many media articles on climate change have a 'discussion' below them where members of the public have their say. A lot of the 'points' made in such environments are simply repetitions of the highly-aired denialist talking-points that are covered by our Climate Myths database. Among them is the popular one, "climate scientists are only in it for the money". This will often be accompanied by claims of outrageously large amounts of dollars (or pounds or whatever) to really get hackles up but without any real evidence for their statement.

In a video as part of her Global Weirding series with PBS, leading climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe comprehensively debunks this myth, explaining what happens when you are awarded a $1 million grant. Well worth a look if you still don't believe us!

Many of the scientists interviewed for our online course, Denial101x, also explain why they do what they do and it doesn't have anything to do with money (big surprise!). All those expert interviews are available in the Wakelet-collection Denial101x Expert Interviews.

John Timmer also tackled this myth at ArsTechnica in 2011 and 2012:

So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science? Since it doesn't have a lot of commercial appeal, most of the people working in the area, and the vast majority of those publishing the scientific literature, work in academic departments or at government agencies. Penn State, home of noted climatologists Richard Alley and Michael Mann, has a strong geosciences department and, conveniently, makes the department's salary information available. It's easy to check, and find that the average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000.

As did Scott Mandia on his blog:

Are scientists getting rich from grant funding? I will use myself as a case study in this post and, in Part II, I will write about others’ experiences.

I recall a lecture I gave on climate change back in April 2009. After I was finished, a gentleman told me that he though[sic] the whole thing was a hoax so that we scientists could get rich from funding. Before I even had a chance to reply, a voice from the crowd (my wife) yelled out, “Trust me, I can tell you, he isn’t making any money from this. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing!” The truth hurts, doesn’t it?:

Mandia goes on to give a detailed example

"I am currently listed as a co-investigator (co-I) on a NASA grant proposal that is to be submitted this month. The principal investigator (PI) is a colleague of mine who I will call Prof. X and the grant budget is requesting $437,232.67 over a three year period. Funding from the proposal will be used to create a learning institute to educate secondary education teachers about climate change. These teachers will be trained to use climate data from NASA in order to incorporate the latest climate change science and data into their curricula. Essentially, NASA will be using some of its funds so that our children will become more informed.

Assuming the grant is approved, it would be easy for somebody doing a cursory scan of NASA grants to shout out that “Prof. X received a grant for $437,232. He is getting rich from research funding! No wonder he claims that humans are causing global warming. He is in it for the money!” Sound familiar? It is often the case where a climate scientist receives a large grant and then there are cries of outrage from those that have no idea of how the money gets spent.

Here is how the $437,232,67 from my grant will be spent over three years:

1. Participant/Trainee Support Costs = $152,678.50 (135 teachers will participate over three years)
2. Consulting Services = $4000 (To assess the curricula developed)
3. Indirect Costs: $76,064.25 (Administrative fees and other fees that are not collected by those named on the grant)
4. Direct Labor = $204,489.92

$204,489.92 is what the investigators on the grant are paid over three years. There are six (6) of us working on this grant. Three of us, including the PI, will receive the majority of that amount. I will receive $48,264.75 over three years ($16,088.25 per year). The PI will receive $49,175.31 over three years.

Imagine that! What appeared to be a grant for Prof. X for $437,232.67 really nets him $16,391.77 per year.

Finally, we’ll leave you with this explanation by Prof. Richard Alley who explained just how absurd this whole claim is during an interview at the AGU Fall Meeting in 2015:

The Skeptical Science website by Skeptical Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.