Why do you insist that the economic incentive is the only, the primary, and most relevant incentive there? Surely you must understand that a lot of people want to do a good job, which in this case means doing good science (which is an abstract concept, unrelated to people's personal motivations). Wanting to do a good job that stands up to scrutiny of one's peers is as much of an incentive as anything. Haven't you experienced that in your own work? Indeed, historically, science has got a lot of things right. I think you might be unreasonably cynical about all this.
> Historically, science has got a lot of things right.
Can you name any historical outcome of science that did not align in some way with the financials? I cannot name a single scientist who ever researched himself out of a job. Yet that is what would happen to climate science researchers if they were able to prove climate change isn't real. It's unprecedented and I don't think using the historical track record of financially beneficial science is a good argument.
As for doing a good job -- sure, I try do a good job always. But that is entirely within the confines of my job. I'm not going to do a good job that would directly get me fired. Most people wouldn't. Most climate science researchers wouldn't.
Economic incentive is usually not the primary incentive, but in the case of climate science, there is a massive peer incentive to prove that climate change is an enormous risk. Saying something like "I don't think climate change matters" is going to get you snide comments from your peers and nobody is going to want to co-author papers with you. It's a big problem of science and exists in many other areas too. Politics matters.
