If climate scientists told us that "global warming" was overblown, they would lose their jobs.

Not true - climate science would still exist. There are A LOT of things that we don't know about the climate (although there being overwhelming evidence that the earth's climate is warming and that those changes are due to human causes isn't one of them).

Being a climate change denier is a very profitable endeavor. Richard Lindzin, John R. Christy, S. Fred Singer and Roger Pielke all get paid very well for their work both directly and indirectly from oil and gas interests. It is actually remarkable that more scientist have not taken up the mantle of the deniers given the big bucks that will come to them from think tanks set up by the oil and gas industry. For those working on the other side of the issue, life is a constant toil of grant writing and academia's cruel publish or perish culture.

Seriously, what do you think about meteorologists that think global warming is bunk?

Liberté wrote:

Regardless of the truth, you'll never hear a climate scientist tell us that global warming isn't going to doom us all. Their job does not depend on accuracy, but on alarmism.

You mean like all the scientists that say fears about vaccines are overblown? Or that fear of Ebola in the USA was overblown?

If your idea were true wouldn't scientists be promoting alarmism on those topics as well?

No Way wrote:

Liberté wrote:

Regardless of the truth, you'll never hear a climate scientist tell us that global warming isn't going to doom us all. Their job does not depend on accuracy, but on alarmism.

You mean like all the scientists that say fears about vaccines are overblown? Or that fear of Ebola in the USA was overblown?

If your idea were true wouldn't scientists be promoting alarmism on those topics as well?

No, no. Only those devious climate scientists are clever enough to have figured out this bullet proof scheme for perpetual job security.

Mbwahahahahhahahahahaha!!!!!!

I think people have this idea that science is like journalism and that it pays significantly more to publish something exciting than it does something boring. Most scientists spend their entire careers researching something that none of us will ever even hear about, real boring stuff. These scientists get paid just fine.

There would be a lot more money available to someone who could disprove global warming anyways, since that would be the bigger story.

Liberté wrote:

Their job does not depend on accuracy, but on alarmism.

Your thread doesn't rely on accuracy, but on alarmism.

No Way wrote:

I think people have this idea that science is like journalism and that it pays significantly more to publish something exciting than it does something boring. Most scientists spend their entire careers researching something that none of us will ever even hear about, real boring stuff. These scientists get paid just fine.

There would be a lot more money available to someone who could disprove global warming anyways, since that would be the bigger story.

Yeah, but try to use 'anyway'. When you say 'anyways' you sound like a middle school girl.

Thanks.

Doomsday predictors have earned good money/goods/pvssy since the dawn of time. The idiots of the world keep paying and force the smart to pay too.

climate oil salesman wrote:

Doomsday predictors have earned good money/goods/pvssy since the dawn of time. The idiots of the world keep paying and force the smart to pay too.

You sound like you understand how science works.

The Koch brothers funded a study on climate change. The funders thought the study would show no change, but in fact, the researcher found evidence supporting global warming.