https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/02/16/william-happer-trump-science-advisor/
[links in on-line article]
Frontrunner for Trump science advisor post agreed not to disclose fossil
fuel funding
February 16, 2017 - 8:00 am
by Lawrence Carter and Maeve McClenaghan
The rumoured frontrunner for the role of Donald Trump’s scientific
advisor is a prominent climate sceptic who was previously caught in an
undercover Energydesk investigation agreeing to conceal fossil fuel
funding of his research.
Professor William Happer, a Princeton University physicist, met with
Donald Trump in January to discuss the role of science advisor and says
he will accept it if offered.
ProPublica reports that he is on a shortlist of two for the role as
director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White
House.
Read the investigation here.
The Energydesk sting further revealed Happer’s concerns over submitting
his climate research to the academic peer review process.
Happer is a leading climate sceptic scientist who believes that
increased levels of CO2 will benefit the planet.
He holds positions at two think tanks that challenge the science of
climate change, including a seat on the academic advisory council of the
UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Want stories like this in your inbox once a week? Sign up here
The Office of Science and Technology Policy provides the President “with
accurate, relevant, and timely scientific and technical advice on all
matters of consequence”.
Under President Obama the department focused on efforts to tackle
climate change, but its page on the White House website has now been
removed and can only be found on Web Archive.
Professor Happer told The Scientist that during the meeting Trump said
that he agreed with his views on climate science.
Academic for hire
In the lead up to the 2015 Paris climate talks, Energydesk reporters
approached Professor Happer posing as representatives of an anonymous
Middle Eastern oil and gas company, looking to commission research on
climate change that would protect its investments.
Happer said he would be willing to produce research promoting the
benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour. He asked that the money be
paid to a climate sceptic campaign group – the CO2 Coalition – of which
he is a board member.
When asked if the fossil fuel client’s role in funding the research
could remain hidden – in order to give the work more credibility –
Happer replied: “If I write the paper alone, I don’t think there would
be any problem stating that ‘the author received no financial
compensation for this essay.’”
He also disclosed that he privately charged Peabody Energy $8,000 in
return for his testimony in a crucial Minnesota state hearing on the
impacts of carbon dioxide. This fee was also paid to the CO2 Coalition.
Happer’s willingness to conceal the source of research funding contrasts
with the ethical requirements of journals like Science.
Science’s editorial policy states that research must be accompanied by
disclosures of: “any affiliations, funding sources, and financial or
management relationships related to the reported research that might
raise questions about possible sources of bias.”
Peer review
The undercover investigation also revealed Happer’s concerns over
submitting his climate research to an academic journal.
When Energydesk reporters asked Happer if the proposed paper could be
put through peer review, Happer replied that he didn’t think it would
get through the process while still making a strong case for why climate
change is good for the planet.
“If you like, I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed
journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such
major changes in response to referees and o [sic] the journal editor
that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit,
not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly
your client would also like.”
Energydesk reporters then asked if he could put the industry funded
report through the same peer review process as research published by the
Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) – which members of the
organisation claimed had been “thoroughly peer reviewed”.
Happer explained that this process had actually consisted of members of
the GWPF academic advisory council and other selected scientists
reviewing the work, rather than presenting it to an academic journal,
but said that he would be willing to describe this as peer review.
“I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of
anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece
to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly
quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think
it would be fine to call it a peer review”, he said.
Internal GWPF investigation
When contacted by Energydesk at the time, Professor Happer declined to
comment.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) said: “Professor Happer made
his scientific views clear from the outset, including the need to
address pollution problems arising from fossil fuel consumption. Any
insinuation against his integrity as a scientist is outrageous and is
clearly refuted by the correspondence.”
But in a further written statement, the GWPF said: “The Trustees of the
Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) will be reviewing the matters
raised by Greenpeace’s undercover investigation and as reported by The
Independent and i papers.”
“However, in the meantime it should be clearly understood that Professor
Happer’s exchanges with the undercover operator were carried out in his
own name and not in his capacity as a member of the GWPF’s Academic
Advisory Council.”