# Why don't climate change deniers publish? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811 "2014-01-14T20:28:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/21 "2014-01-15T05:34:03Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Well, contrary to popular belief, some ‘climate change deniers’ actually do get published. > > For example, Judith Curry, who is considered a denier, has a ton of published, peer-reviewed papers. I’m going to respond to more than just the above, but I quote it as a reference to what I’m responding to, so let’s start with Curry. Judith Curry is someone that I’m quite familiar with. Yes, Judith Curry is a “real” scientist – or at least, she used to be – but is now doing her field a considerable disservice in her ranting blogs. If you actually look critically at her publications, she hasn’t published anything since 2011, and lists only one paper there that was actually published (look at the details). Curry is the worst kind of hypocrite – someone who accuses an entire scientific field of lacking balance and objectivity, and then spews forth intentionally deceptive, self-serving bullshit on her personal blog, ostensibly in the name of objective balance. Ray Ladbury, a physicist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center with a background in science education and science journalism, had a great comment about Curry that perfectly sums up my own feelings: > [@](#): > > I see three themes in Judy’s work since her descent into madness: > > 1. A desire to find a “compromise” with the denialosphere which, while noble in spirit, ignores the fact that truth cannot compromise with mendacity. > > 2. A strong contrarianism, wherein she will embrace just about any nutty idea so long as it runs against the mainstream. > > 3. A craving for the adulation of idiots even if it costs her the respect of colleagues. > > It appears to me that Judy is staking her legacy on the remote possibility that climate science has been flat wrong for 160 years – perhaps with the confidence that if she is right, she’ll be famous, and if wrong, no more forgotten than she would have been in any case. > > It’s either that or early onset dementia. There are actually better examples of denialists who publish – possibly the best of them is Richard Lindzen – but as I said earlier, when they do so it is a kind of Jekyll and Hyde persona – their published papers are generally legitimate and not even particularly controversial – Lindzen mostly does atmospheric physics – but then they use their acquired reputations to rant in public op-eds and blogs about issues that are unsupported by any research of theirs or anyone else’s. But Curry is a disgrace to her profession; whether she has turned to blogging for fame or profit or the onset of dementia I can’t tell, but her antics have been well discredited [here](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/) and [here](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/24/205554/my-response-to-dr-judith-currys-unconstructive-essay/) and [here](http://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry-was-me-she-was-against-me), just for starters. Curry’s antics have even caught the attention of [Sourcewatch](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry), and Scientific American [published an article about her](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic) that I thought was much too kind, but nevertheless lays out many of the problems with her positions. Kind of reminds me of the old saying that, for a publicity whore at least, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. The reasons for all the attention are not hard to understand. She is the darling of WUWT and Watts’ gang of denialists; she’s teamed up with blatant denialists like McIntyre, Pat Michaels, and many others; she’s been courted and quoted by aides to the lunatic senator Inhofe; she’s been quoted and interviewed on denialist sites like Friends of Science and SPPI, the latter I believe slaveringly quoting from an interview with her published in a fine scientific journal called “[Oilprice.com](http://Oilprice.com)”, in which she asserts, among other things, that the IPCC is useless and that any possible attribution of climate change to CO2 is unknown, assertions with which the fine scientific journal [Oilprice.com](http://Oilprice.com) enthusiastically agreed. You also mention John Christy, and he’s not much better. He’s an associate of the complete crackpot Roy Spencer, and the two of them frequently work together… > [@](#): > > That’s not Roy’s prose, but it is Roy’s data over there in the graph on the right, which purports to show that the climate has been cooling, not warming. We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done. > [Link](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/) As for your link to “denialist climate scientists who publish”, I count 7 actually listed as climate scientists, about a dozen more in somewhat allied fields. The IPCC had almost 1000 of the world’s foremost climate scientists contributing to the AR5 alone, out of tens of thousands of qualified climate scientists in the world. What percentage are the avowed denialists? A fraction of a percent, it would appear. Actually, considering the money to be made from the massive disinformation campaign that has been underway for more than 15 years, I’m really surprised the number is that low. We can perhaps take heart that there is more integrity in science than in most fields. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/22 "2014-01-15T05:43:46Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Well, contrary to popular belief, some ‘climate change deniers’ actually do get published. > > For example, Judith Curry, who is considered a denier, has a ton of published, peer-reviewed papers. > > [Link](http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/onlinepapers.html)to papers. Oh like this one?: > **[Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological...](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2930561/)** > > The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century. Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that... > [@](#): > > \*\*Accelerated warming \*\*of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice > > Jiping Liu and Judith A. Curry > > Additional article information > Abstract > > \*\*The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century. \*\*Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall. The simulated sea surface temperature variability from two global coupled climate models for the second half of the 20th century is dominated by natural internal variability associated with the Antarctic Oscillation, suggesting that the models’ internal variability is too strong, leading to a response to anthropogenic forcing that is too weak. With increased loading of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through the 21st century, the models show an accelerated warming in the Southern Ocean, and indicate that anthropogenic forcing exceeds natural internal variability. The increased heating from below (ocean) and above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected decline of the Antarctic sea ice. > [@](#): > > Thus, the increased precipitation in the high latitudes of the Southern Ocean is mainly in a form of snow. This would increase the ice albedo, reducing absorbed solar radiation and encouraging ice growth. As a consequence, the reduced upward ocean heat flux and increased snowfall associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle tends to maintain the Antarctic sea ice, which is consistent with the seeming paradox of the observed increasing total Antarctic sea ice area for the past three decades > [@](#): > > Because of increased heating from below (ocean) and above (atmosphere), combined with increased liquid precipitation, the Antarctic sea ice is expected to decline in the 21st century. As shown in Fig. 5, all three scenarios show a loss of the total Antarctic sea ice area over the 21st century (0.4 × 105 km2 per decade for B1, 2 × 105 km2 per decade for A1B, and 3.02 × 105 km2 per decade for A2), with the greatest loss occurring in the Atlantic and Indian sectors of the Antarctic. Additionally, the rate of decline accelerates after the late 2060s for the A1B and A2 scenarios. Thus, improved representation in models of atmosphere–sea ice–ocean interactions will be critical for forecasting Antarctic sea ice changes as climate warms. I have seen Curry throw a lot of bones to the contrarians but she does not put those bones where it counts, most likely because the data does not lie to her. Same goes for Christie, after he had to admit that most of what he claimed in the past was based on mistakes from his satellite readings, and IIRC he was part of the group that reported that. What this shows is that even the ones that “speak” against the grain are in reality concentrating in minimizing the effects of the warming caused by humans, but they can not deny thermometers, nor the physics of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. So let me guess, a Google vomit from Whats up with that uh? ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/23 "2014-01-15T05:51:12Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > … and Big Oil has deep pockets. Right, so if climate scientists are so venal, why are they fighting over whatever limited amount of grants are offered by the NSF, NASA, etc., rather than taking the billions being spent to promote denialism? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/24 "2014-01-15T06:01:01Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You also mention John Christy, and he’s not much better. He’s an associate of the complete crackpot Roy Spencer, and the two of them frequently work together… Speaking of cooking graphs, I do remember why they call it Baked Curry. 🙂 > **[Judith Curry Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/)** > > NOTE: See the UPDATE at the end of this post. I didn’t expect Judith Curry to embarrass herself more than she did with her fawning over Murry Salby’s folly. But she’s topped (perh… > **[Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline](https://skepticalscience.com/baked-curry-the-best-way-to-hide-the-incline.html)** > > Sadly, the so-called climate 'skeptics' continue to find new ways to spin the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) results.  First they came up with bogus excuses why the BEST results are not valid.  Then they tried to change the subject,... > [@](#): > > Note that Curry has agreed that tamino’s analysis (replicated in this post) is correct and useful, but > > ``` > "my statement to Rose was about the plot with the 10 year running mean ending in 2006 being misleading. It is misleading." > > ``` > > As it so happens, most of the BEST graphs include 12-month running means (i.e. see their research papers). Moreover, how plotting a 10-year running mean is automatically “misleading” is a mystery (unexplained by Curry), and Curry’s accusations of deception remain unsupported, unwarranted, and unwise. > > Accusing other scientists (especially one’s colleagues) of deceit for doing proper statistical analysis is simply unconscionable, and why Curry would accuse others of “hiding the decline” while herself hiding the incline is a mystery. On her blog, Curry complains that the article misrepresented her to some degree (while standing behind some of her worst comments, and acknowledging that the quotes attributed to her in the article are correct), but frankly when dealing with fake skeptics like those at The Daily Mail, most of us know that misrepresentation is the norm. > > We conclude by offering Dr. Curry the same advice we recently offered Dr. Pielke: DNFTD (Do Not Feed The Delayers). In short, if an interviewer tries to “tease out” from you a quote about “hiding the decline,” or some other denialist myth, don’t let them. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/25 "2014-01-15T06:23:37Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > The cash cow is research funding, 999 out of 1,000 published papers about climate are about man-made global warming. I’d take that position if I was a Climatologist with student loans. If you think scientists get rich on research funding, you’ve clearly never been within spitting distance of a graduate department. If you want to get rich, you get speaking or consulting contracts with those companies who fear they will lose money if we do something about this, money which does not have to be budgeted and justified, and money the university doesn’t take a big piece out of. I’ve never reviewed NSF grants for climate science, but I have for engineering and computer science, and if there was a big chunk of money for the PI in there it escaped me. So, let’s say your knowledge of this kind of stuff doesn’t impress me much. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/26 "2014-01-15T06:27:54Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Contrary to what some climate scientist scream at the world, the science is much more complicated than the models they rely on and it certainly isn’t settled. As shown by the research by Curry herself you need to take it with her for using models too to confirm not only warming but explain more properly the apparent paradox of seeing more ice inland in Antarctica. BTW **sleestak** , stop with the [strawmen](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/)and the personification of this issue by somehow taking it on me. You need to take it on the ones that are misleading you, as \*\*wolfpup \*\*showed your list pointed at for sure by WUWT is the pits and the point of the OP is totally missed, the researcher looked at last year’s publications to see the scientific activity of climate change researchers, the catastrophic fall of new peer review papers telling us that AGW is not happening is not to be expected if one of the big mantras of the deniers was true, that there is a lot of evidence and research being found constantly to dismiss the issue. In reality it is what even a guy like me that came from the third world can notice, virtually all the recent reports of that contrarian “evidence” is coming from bloglessors and even researchers that are going like creationists to the media for support and publication, and when they use published articles more often than not they are misrepresenting what the researchers actually report in their conclusions. (Sometimes they even misrepresent themselves). IMHO what we are seeing is very similar to the final twitches of creationist researchers (funny that Spencer is one also) when confronting the sea of biology papers confirming evolution. They then Publish books (or publish blogs) and skip peer review. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/27 "2014-01-15T07:52:53Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If you think scientists get rich on research funding, you’ve clearly never been within spitting distance of a graduate department. > … > I’ve never reviewed NSF grants for climate science, but I have for engineering and computer science, and if there was a big chunk of money for the PI in there it escaped me… I think the premise is not that there is big money to be made in research grants, but that the “cash cowboys” will be the “carbon credit brokers”, or some such jabberwock. I heard the denial-ragers go on about how the fiendish algore creature is running the tables in this pursuit, not sure if that is even as substantive as meringue. Presumably, the scientists who give them support will be in for a piece of that, a gratuity of sorts. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/28 "2014-01-15T13:41:58Z")
There is too much money and too much political power involved in AGW as accepted fact to allow any hint that science has found it to be false. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/29 "2014-01-15T14:13:37Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > There is too much money and too much political power involved in AGW as accepted fact to allow any hint that science has found it to be false. And yet, it’s the deniers that are spending billions. And not on scientific research. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/30 "2014-01-15T14:41:39Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I was thinking of those with Ph.D.s in climatology. Back in my day, a bachelor’s degree is all you needed. > [@Voyager](#): > > If you think scientists get rich on research funding, you’ve clearly never been within spitting distance of a graduate department. No, I’ve not been within spitting distance of graduate departments in impoverished third-world nations. The ones run at UC are very well funded, extensively equipped and is arguably the finest in the world. Graduate students actually PAY to attend … [giggle] … I’m surprised you didn’t know that. * * * Thank you, **sleestak** , I think that’s a fine answer to the OP. It should remind us all that scientific method requires contrary opinions, contrary research and challenges to any and all published material. Once the entire body of science becomes focused on a single theory at the exclusion of all others, it stops being science and becomes philosophy. Consider the [2011 Nobel Prize for Physics](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html), and how we’ve had to change the Big Bang Theory to accommodate this new information. That’s how science works. I afraid I have to agree with **Gigo** , I understand how richly he deserves such personifications. It’s more than just him that starts the _ad hominem_ attacks, and it does disgrace the owners of this website who, in their wisdom, did provide an explicit rule forbidding such discourse on this board. It’s almost impossible to attack their ideas since they rarely state them, opting for copy/pasting someone else’s ideas. It’s in this cherry-picking that they run afoul the basic Laws of the classical universe. They don’t seem to know that publishing in a peer reviewed scientific journal is, in fact, an open invitation for criticism. I don’t know why they get so upset and start name-calling as soon as any objection is raised. Pride is a sin, especially in science. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/31 "2014-01-15T15:05:38Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Thank you, **sleestak** , I think that’s a fine answer to the OP. It should remind us all that scientific method requires contrary opinions, contrary research and challenges to any and all published material. Once the entire body of science becomes focused on a single theory at the exclusion of all others, it stops being science and becomes philosophy. Consider the [2011 Nobel Prize for Physics](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html), and how we’ve had to change the Big Bang Theory to accommodate this new information. That’s how science works. Since when was evolution a philosophy? And astronomy? sooner or later what is based on reality comes to dominate, the astrologers then do not publish much of it nowadays. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I afraid I have to agree with **Gigo** , I understand how richly he deserves such personifications. It’s more than just him that starts the _ad hominem_ attacks, and it does disgrace the owners of this website who, in their wisdom, did provide an explicit rule forbidding such discourse on this board. You agree? It is not clear because then you go for a mistaken point. You are mistaken, and you should stop the junior modding, pointing at the ignorance on this message board is more than allowed, it is the point of this message board. (and more than once I admitted my ignorance when it is shown with evidence) > [@watchwolf49](#): > > It’s almost impossible to attack their ideas since they rarely state them, opting for copy/pasting someone else’s ideas. It’s in this cherry-picking that they run afoul the basic Laws of the classical universe. They don’t seem to know that publishing in a peer reviewed scientific journal is, in fact, an open invitation for criticism. I don’t think you are supporting people that do. You re not realizing that criticism was also part of the work of the climate scientists that published last year and the longer this goes it demonstrates that the criticism of the contrarians is less impressive as years go by. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I don’t know why they get so upset and start name-calling as soon as any objection is raised. > > Pride is a sin, especially in science. So say the one that goes for the f-bombs directed to people like me elsewhere in the message board. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/32 "2014-01-15T15:13:02Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > No, I’ve not been within spitting distance of graduate departments in impoverished third-world nations. The ones run at UC are very well funded, extensively equipped and is arguably the finest in the world. Graduate students actually PAY to attend … [giggle] … I’m surprised you didn’t know that. Would you please provide the incomes of the researchers there? Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/33 "2014-01-15T15:34:35Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > And yet, it’s the deniers that are spending billions. And not on scientific research. Why is that? Actually they do, the deniers recently funded real skeptics like Muller to check the data from the IPCC and and to see if other conclusions made by most researchers were valid. After the Berkeley team came up with even more evidence that showed that previous researchers were correct, people like Anthony Watts did go back on his promise to accept what Muller did find out. > **[About Berkeley Earth - Berkeley Earth](https://berkeleyearth.org/about/)** > > Todays Challenge Global warming is they defining environmental challenge of our time. The need for quality, accessible scientific data about global warming could not be more urgent. Yet there are few independent sources of historic global temperature... > [@](#): > > From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forcings. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit. That denial of even what skeptical scientists found is endemic of sites like WUWT. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/34 "2014-01-15T15:39:42Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > No, I’ve not been within spitting distance of graduate departments in impoverished third-world nations. The ones run at UC are very well funded, extensively equipped and is arguably the finest in the world. Graduate students actually PAY to attend … [giggle] … I’m surprised you didn’t know that. I’ve worked in extremely well-funded laboratories. and I’ve worked in laboratories where all the funding came out of the principal investigator’s pocket. None of the wealth in any of these laboratories was that of the principal investigator, the postdocs, the graduate students or the technicians. It was all the school’s wealth. The graduate students that get a good deal in graduate school do not pay tuition and make a stipend that amounts to about $16,000/year for research or teaching work. Postdoc salaries top out at about $55,000 and the typical person with their Ph.D. starts at about $40,000. I never got past being a postdoc, but the salaries of those actually earning the big grants weren’t that impressive. Maybe $80,000, but I imagine that number varies widely based on a large number of factors. Where I last worked, if you do not earn grant money then your salary drops to zero. I do not know where you got the idea that there is wealth to be had in being a researcher, but you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/35 "2014-01-15T15:49:55Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Back in my day, a bachelor’s degree is all you needed. We’re talking about research, so presumably people with research degrees are more qualified. Of course that doesn’t mean people with bachelor’s degrees are completely unqualified. So, what’s the breakdown of the qualifications of deniers? How many bachelor’s, master’s, etc. in relevant fields? > [@watchwolf49](#): > > No, I’ve not been within spitting distance of graduate departments in impoverished third-world nations. The ones run at UC are very well funded, extensively equipped and is arguably the finest in the world. Graduate students actually PAY to attend … [giggle] … I’m surprised you didn’t know that. Wow, you really don’t know anything about how academia works. Where do you think that funding comes from? It’s the research grants professors spend most of their time chasing. And the main use of that funding is to pay the graduate students that do most of the actual research. Very few people actually pay to get Ph.Ds, to the point that if someone did choose to pay their own way it would be looked upon with suspicion. FTR, I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science from a UC school. So, given that’s the way it works, and given that in many fields it’s common for industry to give research grants to academics, and given that ability to bring in research funding is the major metric for academic success and tenure granting, and given that deniers are spending billions, why is so little of that money going to actual, independent research? Because the results are like what GIGO described above: confirmation of the existing results. Trust me, if there was any valid science in denialism, there would be hordes of junior academics clamoring for that research funding and publishing dozens of papers. It would be a career making move. The notion that they would willingly be dupes in some vast conspiracy to hide the truth in hopes of getting a few crumbs from the limited grants from the NSF and other government agencies is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/36 "2014-01-15T16:33:27Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > The cash cow is research funding > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I do not know where you got the idea that there is wealth to be had in being a researcher, but you are wrong. I’d like for you to confine your rebuttals to things I’ve actually posted, and not what others would insert into my statements: > [@Voyager](#): > > If you think scientists get rich on research funding … Maybe I’m not connecting the dots here, please explain what the grad student’s stipend has to do with the overall economies of research, say compared to launching a single satellite into the proper orbit? But as a general rule, please don’t hold me accountable for what other people post, unless I give you my permission. What do you think of my statement that “999 out of 1,000” articles are about man-made global warming? It smells fishy to me, what’s your take? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/37 "2014-01-15T16:48:38Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > Very few people actually pay to get Ph.Ds I’ve got total fees as $14,829.63 per year from [at UCLA](http://grad.ucla.edu/gss/library/feesintro.htm) for a grad research student. > [@kenetic](#): > > Trust me, if there was any valid science in denialism I am not aware of any scientific research into how we define “good” and “evil”. For the third time I state: I am a denier because I believe global warming is a good thing. If you have no rebuttal, then we have no debate … please choose another subject … ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/38 "2014-01-15T16:59:00Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’ve got total fees as $14,829.63 per year from [at UCLA](http://grad.ucla.edu/gss/library/feesintro.htm) for a grad research student. If you’ll look over that site again, you’ll find a column headed “Graduate Student Fee Remissions.” Please check out those schedules, in handy PDF format. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/39 "2014-01-15T17:02:16Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’ve got total fees as $14,829.63 per year from [at UCLA](http://grad.ucla.edu/gss/library/feesintro.htm) for a grad research student. And you pay that out of pocket? In what field, if you don’t mind me asking. I must have known hundreds of grad students at UCSC across a wide variety of fields and never met a single one that paid out of pocket. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I am not aware of any scientific research into how we define “good” and “evil”. Please indicate where I or anyone else used the terms “good” or “evil.” Even in the part you quoted I said “valid.” You realize the difference between saying something’s invalid and saying it’s evil, right? > [@watchwolf49](#): > > For the third time I state: I am a denier because I believe global warming is a good thing. If you have no rebuttal, then we have no debate … please choose another subject … You might want to look at the title of this thread, and start a different one if you’re not interested in debating the topic. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/40 "2014-01-15T17:39:57Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > You might want to look at the title of this thread, and start a different one if you’re not interested in debating the topic. Just one note on that, there is a lot of ignorance on the basic economics of this issue, \*\*watchwolf49 \*\*is indeed denying what even economists are also recommending. > **[Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/)** > > The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. At a time when we need to clarify public confusions about the science and economics of climate change, skeptics have muddied the waters. I will describe... > [@](#): > > The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs). > > This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs. > > This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10 > > My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities. And this is not adding most of the cost of other possible problems a warming world can bring, thinking that global warming is a good thing is reckless. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811.md?page=3)