Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Climate change skeptics often question the financial motivation of climatologists. It's certainly something to consider, but they rarely propose alternatives. I don't think this argument is being made in good faith. More importantly, it's kind of absurd on face. Science pays horribly. See: literally any thread on HN about PhD programs. See also: levels.fyi vs. the starting salary for asst. profs at your local state…
The fact they are not paid well may be used as more evidence they are "bribe-able". I'm not saying they have been bribed, only that low pay cannot be reliable used as evidence either way.
It'd not just that they are not paid well. It's the fact that they have very explicitly and consistently chosen science over money. If they wanted money, they could switch jobs tomorrow and have more money (and more free time).