Hustled by the best of them
by Peter W. Johnson
Funny how around the late 1960s scientists began to worry about long term environmental trends, and in the next two decades, (70s, and 80s) made accurate predictions about the climate change—nearly four decades before today. So, this global conspiracy not only spans several generations, but the plot to take over the world’s economy also must have been fiendishly designed by using a time machine that allowed scientists to go forward to 2014 and see what today’s weather would be like.
After all, If they were willing to bet the entire farm, on the chance that they could correctly predict our weather at least three decades before it happened, they would have been considered more bold than the most seasoned gamblers in Vegas, and, if they knew they would NOT personally receive any financial gains from perpetrating such a massive myth (since many who were alive back then, no longer are) they must have been trying to secure wealth for future generations—not themselves. Yes, quite a thing to invest so much time and energy in an attempt to corner the world’s economic system while knowing that one would likely not even be alive to see it? Pretty impressive luck had by those tree-huggers liberals with their crystal balls.
Despite the fact that many Climate scientists probably have very comfortable incomes—especially after earning graduate degrees and entering their particular fields—it is so devious of them to decide on making a fortune out of doing conspiratorial research on global warming. And, it must have surprised them when they found out that almost all of the grant money used, was already allocated toward research equipment, buildings, field structures, supplies, administrative costs and Graduate student support…etc…etc. —Very little of it, if any, goes to line the pockets of researchers. The universities which authorize such research actually think the money is theirs to allocate—not those conducting the research—Go figure! (sarcasm intended).
The Grant Proposal Guide 2 section C part g (budget) of The National Science Foundation, clearly states:
“Grant funds may not be used to augment the total salary of faculty members during the period covered by the term of faculty appointment or to reimburse faculty members for Consulting or other times in addition to a regular full-time organizational salary covering the same general period of employment.”
In many Universities money is only earned by researcher to replace any regular wages they may have lost when occupied with research, and even if small earnings are made, they are only computed as compensation for other lost hours, such as class preparations and lecturing.
Yes, it’s true that, if a particularly insightful or conclusive research paper is the result of such research, after being vetted by one’s peers in climate science, its success may lead to money made as a guest speaker at various venues, or perhaps results in a larger salary. But, even when a tenured professor makes 100 grand or more per year, when the cost of his education and the hours he has spent in research are compiled, he or she should only be considered as being worthy of such a very comfortable wage.
It is also well known that scientists who work for private companies or government agencies earn much more. So, if scientists are only motivated by the base greed that, global warming deniers accuse them of having, then why do they choose to go into a smaller paying jobs, doing publicly funded research at universities? Such a financial reality is completely counter-intuitive to the motivation that greed usually inspires in those seeking money or fame. But gee, so many oil industry scientists, who are generously compensated with payments of ten of thousands of dollars for reinforcing the views of companies like ExxonMobil (in order to deny climate change), just don’t seem to realize this—huh!?
Those of us who rely on reasoning thorough the process, before deciding to believe various conspiracies theories, are shocked by the venality of many deniers and the companies and conservative think tanks that employ them—companies and organizations that then provide (fox guarding the henhouse) evidence while projecting their own faults onto the scientists they target. And, if one merely drives through the faculty parking lots at public Universities that do scientific research, one will find a conspicuous lack of Mercedes and Lamborghinis parked there. More likely one will see many smaller, less expensive and more fuel efficient cars driven by faculty members.
Finally I would like to note that an article written in The National Review by Ian Murray (which inspired this Guest Voice post) along with other articles from people like him, is first of all, questionable, because Murray is the Vice President for strategy, at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is a journal dedicated to, “free markets and limited government.”—in other words—a conservative think tank! So, this alone, does not speak well for the objectivity of his remarks.
And, his article about the supposedly large “gravy train” incomes available for climate science researcher can be found by googling “Articles by Ian Murray in the National Review Online,” (also not a very objective source) which nonetheless discusses whether Climate scientists earn a lot of money, and, is linked to a Yahoo, forum discussion about it, where one of the commenters notes that Murray’s article says nothing about his source, and, another commenters on the same forum, notes that after trying to verify Murray’s figures, one will find that they are nonsense i.e. Murray claims to have gotten his statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, even though there are no listing for climate scientists in their data base. Take a look at (http//www.bls.gov/home) for proof.
This second commenter also reveals that Murray works for Heartland Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research—both of which are funded by the oil industry.
Now if you ask me, none of this unsubstantiated garbage presents a solid case that climate scientists are making a fortune doing research about global warming—has anyone pursuing a business degree, ever been told that if he or she wants to strike it rich, they should pursue a degree in climate science instead, and strike it rich by doing publicly funded research?
But, unfortunately, if one wants to cling to the illusion that CO2 emissions are not contributing greatly to global warming, there is no amount of reason in the world that can deny such an exciting and delusional, but bogus, pastime!
Let me close with a comment made on the Daily Kos, whose author put it this way;
“The conspiracy is small—and it belongs to the merchants of denial. They are the ones conspiring to perpetrate a hoax. It amazes me that they’ve gotten away with it for so long.
Suppose I’m a conspirator. I’ll accuse you of doing exactly what I’m doing—conspiring to perpetrate a hoax—and I’ll make endless, relentless noise far and wide (as much as I can choose to afford). Nobody will notice what I’m doing because they are so busy looking at you.
Sound about right?”
The enormous amounts of money available to climate denial groups and the tremendous success of their campaign to exploit our ignorance about science, along with our distrust of government, while they circulate huge amounts of misinformation and, yes—often outright lies—has taken its toll on any possible political will to do what we eventually must.
So most importantly, let’s just allow ourselves to think clearly about a multi-billion dollar coal and oil industry (often amasses those billions for only one corporation—like ExxonMobil) and then give ourselves the freedom to question the significance of the fortunes at stake for these companies—so that we can recognize the even more obvious reasons why big oil and big coal have an understandable, and even urgent, need to discredit our climate scientists—as well as the research they do!
But I’ve got to run now.
I’m late for brain surgery.
After all, it took so long to find an affordable brick layer to do the job! That damn PhD Neurologist obviously knows nothing! Who among us can argue with logic like that?
Peter Johnsons is a senior citizen who has become much more interested in what is happening in America and the world, than he was as a young man. He’s interested in poetry and expository writing, and has had letters to the editor published in Time magazine, Newsweek and Playboy magazine. He is concerned about ignorance and indifference that has been circulated concerning the significance of man made global warming and is dismayed by the way political lies and corruption are being used to influence the public (apparently free from any penalties or adequate culpability). He frequently writes letters of opinion to the editors of his local newspapers.