Comments on: Taking the Money for Grant(ed) – Part II

By: Media Trackers writer ignorant of academia and climate issues, hypocritical regarding ethics | Scholars and Rogues

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:20:21 +0000

[...] (aka defrauding the grantor). Physical science professor Scott Mandia wrote two posts at his blog describing exactly how this works. Essentially, principal investigators have their salary reduced by some amount to account for the [...]

By: Big Fight Brewing Over Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Results - Page 5 - SLUniverse Forums

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:46:05 +0000

[...] which I assume is a separate category from "reasonable researchers". Taking the Money for Grant(ed) Peddling global warming fears puts big money in pockets of climate researchers $100 Million in [...]

By: Melty

Melty — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:52:43 +0000

hyperzombie: did you mistake Dr. Hansen’s phone number as his income? I looked at the SF-278 and could not see anything like the numbers you cite. Perhaps you included the items in the Examples rows as actual income? They are _examples, not actual data. It looks to me as if he has some investment income in addition to salary, then received some prizes for his (not insubstantial) contributions to science. If I have mis-read the form perhaps you could highlight some of the salient quantities?

By: hyperzombie

hyperzombie — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:38:36 +0000

Dr James Hansen could afford a new car, or even a private jet with the extra money that he makes. Dr. Hansen received between $236,000 and $1,232,500 in outside income in 2010 relating to his taxpayer-funded employment.

see here: http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ATI-NASA-Hansen-SF-278-2010.pdf

By: Dr. Hansen’s Comment to the Naysayers « Global Warming: Man or Myth?

Dr. Hansen’s Comment to the Naysayers « Global Warming: Man or Myth? — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:20:58 +0000

[...] Scientists cannot get rich from public grant funding. I blogged about that fallacy here and here. [...]

By: Climate scientists are not getting rich from grant money! | Ace Campaign

Climate scientists are not getting rich from grant money! | Ace Campaign — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 09:09:17 +0000

[...] Font size: Taking the Money for Grant(ed) – Part Iwith 32 commentsUpdate 03/22/2010: Part II now availableby Scott Mandia, “Global Warming — Man or Myth?” blog, March 11, [...]

By: BillD

BillD — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:21:28 +0000

We faculty are really rich. I've had two sabbaticals where I've worked a total of 21 months in Europe. While I was there I also gave lectures throughout the continent and I was generally given a bed to sleep on and reumbursement for my train ticket. I walked to work each day and used a bicycle for shopping. For the second sabbatical, my wife was able to take an unpaid leave of absence, so she was the one who rode her bicycle to the shops. It was a real blast working 70 hours a week in the lab and then taking a few weeks off to visit colleagues from different countries with sightseeing along the way. I can't immagine that a retired multimillionaire could have had such a good time during a European vacation.

Mandia: Yes, but I bet they were brand new, very expensive bicycles! You scientists are so lucky to be getting all that cash.

By: David Greenwood

David Greenwood — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:32:19 +0000

Hi Scott

I think if we scientists were motivated by money, we would never have gone to grad school! Anyone with a PhD will testify that they would have been better off financially had they not gone into science. The few exceptions have benefitted from patents (e.g. big pharma), rarely a book deal (writing textbooks won’t make you rich), or getting onto company boards (like some skeptics … Dr Ian Plimer is on several mining company boards: http://www.prwatch.org/node/8686 ).

By: Scott A Mandia

Scott A Mandia — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:42:26 +0000

Thanks for another “setting the record straight comment”. Your comments prove what I have stated many times: Scientists are in it for the curiosity factor and to help mankind. They are not “in it for the gold”.

By: David Greenwood

David Greenwood — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:59:21 +0000

There are many ways to be ‘rich’. I think the problems we face with AGW are symptomatic of a broader malaise in our society where we value material wealth above all else. Don’t get me wrong; I’d like a new car (preferrably electric), a nice house, and yes, a big screen TV. I think I am ‘rich’ in that my profession has taken me across the world as part of my research – from the soon to be gone tundra of Canada’s Arctic, to the steamy tropical rainforests of New Guinea, and the stark beauty of Australia’s deserts. And I’ve worked in great institutions in Australia, the US, and Canada, and had the privelege to teach some wonderfully gifted yound future scientists. And most importantly, a great family and great friends, both in my profession and outside it. On that last point, I think it is salient to note that most scientists get along with their peers (note I said ‘most’), even those we disagree with on topics like AGW. I have close colleagues who are staunch AGW skeptics. We have civil but heated debates on the topic. What isn’t ‘rich’ about my life is the shrill sometimes abusive attacks scientists like myself have suffered from some commentators on the skeptics side of the discussion. Disagreement is normal in science and argument (in the sense of debate) is part of the process. Bombastic ideologically driven agendas are not part of science but are part of the public ‘debate’ over AGW. This character of the discourse on AGW threatens the public’s trust in science. There is a great article in this week’s issue of Nature on this topic, with some pleasant good news; seems ordinary folk CAN see through the BS. Nice thought to end the week on.