Global-warming alarmists often portray climate scientists as poorly paid academics whose judgment is impervious to the influence of money. This seems strange given the billions of taxpayer dollars that have been invested in climate science over the past few years. And as the public-choice school of economics has clearly shown, the opportunity for reward affects even supposedly disinterested professionals.
Therefore, it is fair to ask: Just how well rewarded are climate scientists? As it turns out, by some measures they are paid as well as corporate CEOs.
Advertisement
When it comes to comparing the annual salaries of various professions, there is an obvious problem. Some work extremely long hours — about 2,600 a year for firefighters — while others work far fewer — 1,400 a year for teachers. To iron out this difficulty, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ National Compensation Survey converts yearly salaries into hourly pay. From that we can see that teachers, at $37.91 an hour, are actually much more highly paid than firefighters, at $21.68 an hour, despite their comparable annual salaries ($53,000 for teachers, $55,000 for firefighters).
What about climate scientists? Well, university lecturers and professors earn an average of $49.88 an hour over a 1,600-hour work year, for a total salary of about $80,000. In the public sector, “atmospheric, earth, marine, and space sciences teachers, postsecondary” earn considerably more than the average university teacher ($70.61 per hour). They also work much less (1,471 hours each year), and despite their lower workload, they pull down about $104,000 a year. Climate scientists’ hourly pay ranks them higher than business-school teachers at public universities, who earn $63.35 an hour, but not public-sector law-school professors, who earn over $100 an hour.
So climate scientists are very well compensated, out-earning all other faculty outside of law in hourly-wage terms. What about the rest of the public sector? Astonishingly, only one other public-sector profession — psychiatrist — pays better than climate science, at just over $73 an hour. In other words, climate scientists have the third-highest-paid public-sector job, ranking above judges.
What about the private sector? That’s led by airline pilots, who earn about $112 an hour, but work for only 1,100 hours a year, followed by company CEOs at an average of $91 an hour. Physicians and surgeons earn almost as much as CEOs, at $89.51 an hour. Private-sector law-school professors, interestingly enough, earn far less than their public-school counterparts, at $82 an hour. After that come professor-level jobs in engineering, at $76.11, and dentists, at $73.19. These are the only private-sector professions that pay more than climate science. Taking the public and private sectors together, by my reckoning, climate scientist is the tenth-highest-paid profession in the nation.
Bear in mind that these averages are statistical means, and are therefore inflated by extremely high salaries at the top end, particularly in the case of CEOs and physicians. If we look at median earnings — what the earner right in the middle of the pack gets — we see that climate scientists get $75.29 an hour, compared with private-sector CEOs at $75.48 and physicians at $81.73.
The story gets even more interesting when we look back at the figures from 2005, the year before Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truthlaunched the current wave of climate alarmism. Back then, university teachers were paid $43.16 an hour, while climate scientists were paid $54.65 an hour. In other words, climate-science compensation has risen by 30 percent in five years, while pay for other university instructors has increased by only 15 percent.
There was a time when climate scientists were not extremely well paid, but that is no longer the case. Not only have their earnings grown far faster than their colleagues’, but on an hourly basis they now earn as much as CEOs. When climate skeptics talk about a global-warming gravy train, the numbers back them up.
— Iain Murray heads the Center for Economic Freedom at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
As someone who works on the National Compensation Survey, I can tell you that getting accurate data for hours worked is one of our greatest challenges.
One area where this is particularly hard is with airline pilots and flight attendants, as the hours that we are able to collect tend to be flight hours (i.e., time spend in the air), not hours worked.
Another problematic occupation is...you guessed it...teachers. And this extends to college professors. Here, and with other professions where the pay is a yearly salary rather than a hourly wage (so this is also true of CEOs, doctors, etc.) is that the companies who employ them will simply claim that they are "full time" workers who therefore work 40 hours a week. And I think that we all know that many professionals work A LOT more than 40 hours a week.
This isn't to say that your comparisons are wrong. Just that they are built on possibly shaky data.
Even if the data could be normalized across professions -- which it can't -- to imply that these climate geeks are in it for the money is laughable. A good half of these guys could make ten times what they currently make switching out to Wall Street. These analytogeek-types are exactly what Wall Street has diverted from the more noble professions such as medicine, research, and . . . climate science. You think your basic climatologist couldn't score high on the GMAT, go to B-School, and come out a "money guy"?
Oh yeah, a "private sector CEO," according to this piece, averages close to $160k a year.
That kind of "private sector CEO" is the guy who owns the corner drugstore. David Koch he ain't. So am I shocked to learn that climatologists make almost as much as the corner store druggist? Am I? Well, am I, punk?
@MikeB Even if the data could be normalized across professions -- which it can't -- to imply that these climate geeks are in it for the money is laughable. A good half of these guys could make ten times what they currently make switching out to Wall Street. These analytogeek-types are exactly what Wall Street has diverted from the more noble professions such as medicine, research, and . . . climate science. You think your basic climatologist couldn't score high on the GMAT, go to B-School, and come out a "money guy"?
Not a chance in hell - you don't know the "money" business. First given the shoddy quality of the statistics used by many cimate "scientists" they actually aren't number oriented enough to run business analysis. Second, their personalities took them into the academic world; those personalities, even if backed by a numbers capable brain, would not thrive in the business world. So, no, I don't see the large majority of climate "scientists" as at all capable of succeeding in business.
MikeB: Are you actually stupid enough to believe that someone who has degrees in climate science could just jump straight into a wall street position?
You've been spending a lot of time complaining about how public employees are underpaid. I know, from now on, whenever you say something that stupid, I'll just pipe up and declare that it serves them right, they should just switch to a career in wall street, then they can make much more.
I would like to see some more commentary from people who work in academia.
I notice that Iain Murray is trying to compare apples and oranges here. He is comparing research scientists to "lecturers"--he doesn't say if these "lecturers" are adjuncts or not.
Is he comparing climate scientists, who may be tenured faculty, with "lecturers" which include a higher proportion of adjuncts?
Is he counting the vast number of postdocs, who make much less than tenured faculty, as "climate scientists"?
But the most relevant information left out is this: what do other unviversity scientists make? Because climate scientists are making the same kind of money chemistry, physics, and engineering facutly make. They make significantly more than faculty in the humanities.
These kinds of games with numbers are worthy of Michael Moore, not of NRO.
It's hard to see that climate scientists are so "overpaid". Maybe academics in general are overpaid, but Iain Murray doesn't even attempt to make that case. Instead, he compares apples to tiranges by comapring science research faculty to gerenal university teaching, which is statistically dishonest.
Gabriel Hanna: "I would like to see some more commentary from people who work in academia."
Ok. As a postdoc at a top research institution, let me say that this is a stupid way of looking at all this. Most career scientists treat it as a calling, or you wouldn't put up with it all. Even if the pay were doubled, you'd still be working 60-80 hours per week (sometimes even more) pre-tenure. You simply have to love it. One problem is that you may then start to believe in what you are doing, instead of trying to prove yourself wrong. That is the far more dangerous trap.
Now, for compensation: I think my pay, mid-50's, is fairly representative of high-end postdocs. Assistant Prof's probably start at $80k at the best schools (with another ~$15-20k summer salary from grants). In my experience, there is no significant difference between climate scientist pay and pay for other hard sciences. They're not starving. I would guess, based on people I've known going private, that you could on average beat this by $20k, but you'd probably have to work a lot less.
MikeB: "A good half of these guys could make ten times what they currently make switching out to Wall Street." Wow. That is so far outside my experience, I must say this claim is simply laughable. If I could make half a million, I'd be out of academia in a second. And trust me, I'd be in the top half of climate scientists.
But, really, what is the point of this article? That climate scientists are not starving, or that they're being paid off? They do well for themselves, and they have the non-monetary compensation of prestige and status. Many professors in all fields are egomaniacs, willing to trade money for people believing they are better or smarter than someone in the private sector. But none of this addresses the only important question, whether they're right.
"Even if the data could be normalized across professions -- which it can't"
Note that the data cited was indeed normalized. So the above statement is trivially false.
"to imply that these climate geeks are in it for the money is laughable. A good half of these guys could make ten times what they currently make switching out to Wall Street."
Could they? There are two things to remember here. First, Wall Street jobs aren't easy jobs. There's a lot of work and hours, and quite a bit of responsibility. A high paying academic job in comparison is really sweet.
"These analytogeek-types are exactly what Wall Street has diverted from the more noble professions such as medicine, research, and . . . climate science."
But then they wouldn't be as useful to society. IMHO, there's a great deal of ignorance about the value of indiscriminate science and other sorts of research and development when done without purpose or goal. Frankly, the majority of it just isn't that valuable.
"You think your basic climatologist couldn't score high on the GMAT, go to B-School, and come out a "money guy"?"
Yes. It takes special skills which the GMAT doesn't measure.
I assume you'll crush the GMAT and wind up in a very good B-school. I'll also assume that, as you have "post-doc" smarts, you'll do very well.
From there, think a couple hundred thousand to start, since you've got the kind of esoteric background private equity and hedge funds view as "cool." From there, a couple of years and a couple of deals and your bonus will put you right there in the half million category.
Not that I know anything about this, according to MarkW. Nah, not I.
Using an "hours" worked comparison method is dicey at best. A straight comparison of median salaries would be more meaningful with regards to CEO's vs Professors.
But, you also miss the BIG picture and that's research funding. Jump on the global warming band wagon and get big funding from all levels of government and private alarmists. Keep to the party line, and you'll be able to take that annual 6 month trip to far away places to study some esoteric climate issue. Plus, those that pull in big funds for schools are also the ones who get paid more and get the higher level positions: that's where the big money comes in. They may love it, but they also know where the gravy comes from. In order to get that money, they have to toe the climate alarmist line and they know it.
"Imagine a climatologist with a jones for disproving anthropogenic global warming.
"Think the Koch Brothers might find a way to fund the guy?"
For how long? If you play ball with the AGW people, you're set for the rest of your working life. Even if the global warming stuff were to collapse scientifically, it's not going to stick to most of the climatologists involved.
