Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

magazine.good.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#21

Post by zzalpha »

x1798DE wrote: post #3

Hm, I feel like this is way less sinister than it sounds. From what I know of his prior reputation, Will Happer has long made his position on climate change clear, so it's not like he changed his mind when people offered him a big pile of money. If you already believe something and someone is going to give you money to promote your views, why on earth would you say no?

Will Happer has long made his position on climate change clear, so it's not like he changed his mind when people offered him a big pile of money.

You're missing the point.

It's not that this guy was paid off and therefore changed his views.

It's that he published research that he claimed was independent that was not, and in the process neglected to disclose his sources of revenue and conflicts of interest.

Those very conflicts of interest would, under normal circumstances, force folks to question the nature of the research and the quality of the results. IMO that's getting awfully close to academic misconduct. It's certainly extremely unethical.

Edit:

BTW, "Merchants of Doubt" has covered this territory extensively, so to be honest, I'm not sure Greenpeace has added much to the dialog, here, aside from flat out catching folks in the act.

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#22

Post by mirimir »

kaitai wrote: post #4

I feel like I'm missing out on a lot of cash. Anyone want to let me know who will buy off a math professor?

Over half of the articles about Zoloft published in 1998-2000 were ghostwritten and funded by Pfizer ;)

Comfortably Numb: How Psychiatry Is Medicating a Nation by Charles Barber

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#23

Post by SCAQTony »

gohrt wrote: post #6
x1798DE wrote: post #3

Hm, I feel like this is way less sinister than it sounds. From what I know of his prior reputation, Will Happer has long made his position on climate change clear, so it's not like he changed his mind when people offered him a big pile of money. If you already believe something and someone is going to give you money to promote your views, why on earth would you say no?

1) Intentionally hiding the source of funding; aka taking a bribe. 2) Intentionally publishing in a sham journal to avoid peer review. These are both tolerable behavior in the free market, but ought to be firable offenses for university professors.

No question that this matches the definition of manufacturing consent albeit if he guy was all ready on their side or not.

I wonder if topics like education, biotech, military engagements, and torture are handled in a likewise fashion? A dime per word so to speak.

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#24

Post by Pils »

nostromo wrote: post #18

This seems a bit like the Planned Parenthood tapes: approach someone with false pretenses, and then report the things they say in the worst possible way. I would find it much more damning if they found a professor that would change their position for money, rather than finding people that will accept money to forward a position they think is correct.

I agree that the trend of using false pretenses to "catch" someone is a bad form of journalism, but I feel like your alternative is even worse. What information is gained by showing that a random professor is unscrupulous? In this case, the professors actively helped the journalists obfuscate where the funding was coming from, and ran a think tank where he knew his work would be accepted.

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#25

Post by epistasis »

nostromo wrote: post #18

This seems a bit like the Planned Parenthood tapes: approach someone with false pretenses, and then report the things they say in the worst possible way. I would find it much more damning if they found a professor that would change their position for money, rather than finding people that will accept money to forward a position they think is correct.

Eh, not really, take this for example:

>The emails and recordings also outline how Happer ran a sham peer-review process through the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a prominent U.K.-based climate skepticist think thank. Happer admits that his papers would not likely be published through typical the academic peer review process. “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.”

The headlines are actually somewhat mundane compared to the substance. This is the reverse of the Planned Parenthood tapes.

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#26

Post by chetanahuja »

I see people arguing that there's nothing bad in this report. The shady, underhanded and dishonest context is so clear, I'm shocked to see so many such objections.

The basic problem here is that two top academics are clearly selling the use of their credentials for clear commercial gain of a private company and using sophisticated means to hide the fact of such sale.

That part is bad enough, even worse is the eager sales pitch and readiness to suggest financial shenanigans to hide the source of the funding that these professors are engaging in. It's very clear that these are not first-timers or unwilling participants. This is their normal MO for writing and speaking on the topic.

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#27

Post by cafebeen »

x1798DE wrote: post #3

Hm, I feel like this is way less sinister than it sounds. From what I know of his prior reputation, Will Happer has long made his position on climate change clear, so it's not like he changed his mind when people offered him a big pile of money. If you already believe something and someone is going to give you money to promote your views, why on earth would you say no?

It's hard to say what he believes, but there seems to be evidence of what is normally considered misconduct, specifically, in using a sham peer review process and misrepresenting the funding sources. I don't think he has to say "no" to the funding, but representing it as "peer reviewed research" that "received no financial compensation" would seem intentionally deceptive. This press release seems to have more detail:

https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academi...

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#28

Post by crazy1van »

epistasis wrote: post #25
nostromo wrote: post #18

This seems a bit like the Planned Parenthood tapes: approach someone with false pretenses, and then report the things they say in the worst possible way. I would find it much more damning if they found a professor that would change their position for money, rather than finding people that will accept money to forward a position they think is correct.

Eh, not really, take this for example: >The emails and recordings also outline how Happer ran a sham peer-review process through the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a prominent U.K.-based climate skepticist think thank. Happer admits that his papers would not likely be published through typical the academic peer review process. “I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write fo…

> Happer ran a sham peer-review process through the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a prominent U.K.-based climate skepticist think thank.

I really don't think submitting papers to similarly minded groups in the name of "peer review" is an uncommon occurrence on any side of the climate change debate -- or any other debate for that matter.

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#29

Post by epistasis »

crazy1van wrote: post #28
epistasis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, not really, take this for example: >The emails and recordings also outline how Happer ran a sham peer-review process through the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a prominent U.K.-based climate skepticist think thank. Happer admits that his papers would not likely be published through typical the academic peer review process. “I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write fo…

> Happer ran a sham peer-review process through the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a prominent U.K.-based climate skepticist think thank. I really don't think submitting papers to similarly minded groups in the name of "peer review" is an uncommon occurrence on any side of the climate change debate -- or any other debate for that matter.

I couldn't disagree more. Restricting your review to "like-minded" people is not science at all. It would be like a person advocating for Intelligent Design by only getting peer-reviewed by other evolution deniers. If the claims can't stand on their own and you have to go looking for "like-minded" people than it's pretty weak sauce.

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#30

Post by shkkmo »

x1798DE wrote: post #17
gohrt wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Intentionally hiding the source of funding; aka taking a bribe. 2) Intentionally publishing in a sham journal to avoid peer review. These are both tolerable behavior in the free market, but ought to be firable offenses for university professors.

I can't comment on the other parts of it really (and I don't know the whole story so I reserve judgement), I'm just skeptical of the claim that he was "bought off" - which would imply that he changed his views because of the money. If the headline were, "Professors agree to hide source of funding and run a climate change journal with lax peer review standards", then I might hold off, but then again, that probably wou…

> which would imply that he changed his views because of the money

No, it doesn't imply that at all.

to buy somebody off:

"to bribe someone to ignore what one is doing wrong."

"To bribe someone in order to ensure cooperation"

The implications carried are that the payments were a bribe and that the actions taken as a result were improper.

Post reply on HN