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.<p>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.<p>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 <i>normal</i> MO for writing and speaking on the topic.
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.<p>If you already believe something and someone is going to give you money to promote your views, why on earth would you say no?
Wonder if anyone is going to do the opposite - try to buy off pro-global-warming professor to produce exaggerated doomsday prediction - and what the outcome is going to be.
When you get a grant, the university has academic freedom stipulations in the contract or memorandum of understanding. You cite sources for every paper. There's a yearly statement of conflict of interest on file. There is absolutely no way these researchers aren't aware of the difficulty of what they've done, even if they are saying what they believe.
I'm a bit curious what people's opinions are after reading this <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co...</a><p>Seems like there is some info being left out. Both sources seem to be hiding things, why not publish the entire e-mail exchanges?
I have some questions about this "sting" that were unanswered in the article. It would be one thing if the academic were paid to have a certain opinion, its is another thing entirely to pay an academic to <i>falsify</i> research supporting a viewpoint they already hold. It reads as if the academics were paid to support a thesis with evidence. Once you are at a high enough academic level you should be able to write a paper arguing for and supporting a thesis whether or not you believe in that thesis on a personal level. It's important to sustain debate on all sides of an issue regardless of whether or not all of those sides are politically popular.<p>The great thing about publishing is that it gives other educated people a chance to rebut and question the argument.<p>I also believe funding sources should be kept secret in some cases so that the paper or research can be judged on its own merit rather than judged based on the motivations of the entity funded it.
To all the people that are somehow saying that this isn't all that bad, you seem to be missing the point. The problem isn't that these professors are taking money to support something they already support. It's that they are taking money and then going to lengths to avoid disclosing the funding OR to make it look like their papers went through a real peer review process...<p>I'm utterly shocked and disappointed by how many people on here are saying things along the lines of "what's the big deal?"
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.<p>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 don't know if Greenpeace's claim is true but in any way they are shooting themselves in the foot. If the promise of a shaddy payment could push academics to say anything, then what about a massive political, media and peer pressure? What if the only way for research to get funding is to attempt to prove the catastrophic effects of global warming.<p>Demonstrating that scientists bow to pressure isn't exactly helping the global warming cause.