- Clemente said that he could be quoted in support of the report using his university job title, and that it would cost $15,000 for the 8-10-page paper. Asked for assurance that the oil and gas funding would be kept secret, Clemente referenced past articles and even testimony in front of state legislatures and said, “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is publised as an independent scholar.”
Wow. This makes me angry. I have a lot to say about this but I'm exhausted. Tagged for visibility. People need to know this exists
Yeah. I know this type of stuff and worse goes on, but I felt actual anger reading it. I also feel like I need to know more about the story as well, since it was uncovered by a "sting" operation. I've seen right wing sting operations the likes of which have come from outfits like Breitbart, and they have been odious and the furthest thing from truthful, so it gives me pause. If this is as represented it's atrocious.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the burden of judgement lies on the schools that administered the degree. If this report is confirmed, the two scientists should have their degrees revoked and face expulsion from academia. Edit: not that Greenpeace has never lied
Shouldn't it be if the report is confirmed and the reports from the professors contain falsified data or conclusions? Maybe I'm jaded, but I found nothing surprising here. Professors at research schools are paid by outside parties to perform research. Any complex issue will have multiple, factually true sides to it. Even more challenging is any study that requires assumptions. By skewing assumptions one way or another while keeping them reasonable, it's easy to skew the outcome one way or another. The article seems to be making a genetic fallacy. Because the money came from oil or coal, any result must be inherently distrustworthy.If this report is confirmed, the two scientists should have their degrees revoked
I am with you here. I expect that academics collect fees for providing testimony, presentations, and papers all the time. The secrecy is a bit disconcerting, but Happer does not request secrecy, nor does he request a fee. The article claims this undercover investigation but the e-mail chain shows Happer specifically sought agreement on his position first: "I would be glad to try to help if my views, outlined in the attachments, are in line with those of your client." He further and very specifically explained his position in the next message. (A note added to this passage reads "A 2013 survey of 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers found 97% of scientists agreed global warming was man-made." This does not contradict Happer's position, nor is it true. If it is the same survey I looked into, only some 3000 scientists responded to the survey, and only 82% of them were in agreement. When only the most expert scientists were counted -- 79 of them -- two of them denied climate change and were thrown out of the results. 75 of the 77 left -- the 97% -- said that human activity is "a significant contributing factor" to climate change, not that it is the only or primary factor.)Maybe I'm jaded, but I found nothing surprising here.
revealed just how easy it is to pay an academic to say whatever you want him to
To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc. I fully support regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants. But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.
Fair point, but it seems as though the energy lobby has made it for that genetic fallacy not to occur anymore. maybe the two scholars at hand countered climate change scientists through facts and reasons (for Clemente, the second scientist, maybe he argued that there were many other factors that caused the death of those 3.7 million people, and that they were not a direct result of coal related pollution), but the fact of the matter is that anything they say can contain malicious intent, and that is what we have to be weary of, especially when they get transferred money through the "dark-money ATM" of the energy lobby.The article seems to be making a genetic fallacy. Because the money came from oil or coal, any result must be inherently distrustworthy.
I totally agree, and while I'll argue the money source doesn't inherently void the work, I should have said just as clearly that the money can be a cause for concern and should be a reason to investigate the validity of scientific claims.
My analysis seems to have bounced off of Hubski's indignation without leaving much of a mark. Suppose we try a thought experiment. How well does the shoe fit on the other foot? Using a fake name and false pretenses, an investigator contacts an Ivy League professor with a long history of warning about the dangers of climate change. The investigator tells her that he represents General Electric, which is introducing a new model of turbine to be used in wind generators. Concerned that government subsidies for renewable energy might expire, GE seeks a briefing describing the virtues of wind energy. The professor responds by sending a paper produced by an advocacy group she founded, the Green Coalition, as well as a copy of testimony she provided to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission as an expert on the costs of CO2 emissions. She writes "I would be glad to try to help if my views, outlined in the attachments, are in line with those of your client." The investigator replies, saying that "It certainly sounds like you and our client are on the same page." However, he is concerned about whether source funding must be declared when research is published. The professor describes her work on climate change as a "labor of love" for which she does not receive external funding. She suggests that any fee could be directed toward her advocacy group. She also adds a detailed statement of her position, including specific points that are adversarial to wind energy, to avoid any misunderstanding: The investigator assures her that GE is "completely comfortable with your views" and mentions that a "peer review process" would "certainly be of interest to our client," asking how that could work, and asks for more details about concealing GE's funding for the work. The professor explains what academic peer review means and warns that seeking publication in an a scientific journal will introduce delay and may require significant editing. She provides information on fees she received for earlier work, and says she doesn't think it would be a problem to state that "The author received no financial compensation for this essay," and that she is pretty sure a donation to the Green Coalition need not be made public, though it would be reported to the IRS. The investigator makes further inquiries about peer review and anonymous payment. Is this still a scandal? Is there anything here to show that you can "pay an academic to say whatever you want him to"? thenewgreen, you lost your faith in studies, and I applaud your skepticism, but the critics can't always be trusted either. (This is a retelling of the Happer correspondence; I see no reference to the Clemente correspondence. All quotes except the long one about the dangers of wind energy are verbatim from the actual sting.) To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are very real dangers and harms associated with wind energy. Construction and maintenance of wind turbines leads to the death and injury of workers. The turbines are considered unsightly by some and represent a serious threat to many bird species. When lifetime costs of manufacture, installation, and maintenance are included, other green alternatives may be more cost effective. Nevertheless, wind energy represents an important option in the goal to mitigate climate change.