Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 1029
  • 56991
  • 0


The New Climate Campaign to Save the Planet and Destroy Society   Science

Started Jan-31 by Apollonius (Theocritos); 371 views.

Climate scientists have vested interests.  So do a lot of other people who benefit from the various grants and subsidies for so-called 'green' projects.  Most of these projects turn out not to be nearly so green as what we are initially told.   Many are downright counterproductive.  A perfect case in point are plastic bags, soon to be outlawed in this country.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Apollonius (Theocritos) said:

Climate scientists have vested interests. So do a lot of other people who benefit from the various grants and subsidies for so-called 'green' projects.

This myth has been debunked.

Debunked?  By whom?   The corporate media?   They're in no position to debunk anyone.  They're on in on the take big time.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)



Myth: Climate scientists are only in it for the money

Back in the mid-1990s, a now controversial Hollywood actor paraphrased Baudelaire: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

If you were born around the time that movie was released, and you'd decided to study an environmental science or related degree at university, you'd be finishing your undergraduate degree about now and facing a choice.

On the one hand, you could take a graduate job in the mining sector where you could earn anything from $51,000 to $120,000+, for fly-in-fly-out and remote work in your first year out of university.

On the other, you could stay and complete an honours year which pays nothing.

If masochism is your thing, having completed that honours year, you could then take on a three-year-minimum PhD, which also pays the princely sum of nothing.

With your PhD complete and having spent a minimum four years earning next to nothing, you could then apply for post-doctorate research positions.

But they still probably won't pay as well as that graduate job with the mines. Which by the way is now paying much more because you've been there going on five years and you're no longer on a graduate's salary.

Apart from the fact that climate scientists don't earn any more than other researchers, the idea that you go into research for the money is the greatest trick the anti-climate-science lobby ever pulled.

As Professor Steffen and Dr Dean pointed out, science "isn't a particularly lucrative profession".

"According to the ABS, people employed in full-time jobs related to professional, scientific and technical services earned an average of $1,872 per week in the year to November 2018," they said.

"This is more than some industries, but less than some other industries, such as mining, which paid on average $2,696 per week to full-time employees over the same period."

The fossil fuel industry is worth nearly $5 trillion, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report from 2014.

Like with most things, when it comes to climate science, the devil is in the details.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


You still haven't read this yet.

Nor will I bother.  It's put out by the Australian Broadcasting Corp.  I've told you several times what I think about them.

Climate scientists aren't necessarily in it for the money, but that doesn't mean that you'll not be cancelled for for coming to the wrong conclusions.

That's even more true of ABC reporters.


Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


Apollonius (Theocritos) said:

Nor will I bother. It's put out by the Australian Broadcasting Corp. I've told you several times what I think about them.

And I have no interest in conservative blogs or right wing TV show hosts.

I guess we will never see eye to eye while we value completely different sources.

Apollonius (Theocritos) said:

Climate scientists aren't necessarily in it for the money

Well, at least you've come this far.