happer2bak txt
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">HAPPER2BAK</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see physics</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see emeritis</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">11/21</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2/19</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">320 poster boy for? physics? hack? he's the mainline channel from email to trump white house, block congress testimony? [transparency]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">omfg gets better trump gig; Soon gets outed, whines and slinks away but Happer immune?!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see heartland, sci suppress 3, house intel comm</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">new</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">note coherent long term strategy!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see extensive talk below wow record? [ACTUAlly A SEEMS PRETY CIVIL/constructive ?i expected libtard war]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>William Happer</b> (born July 27, 1939<sup id="cite_ref-aip_1-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-aip-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[1]</a></sup>) is an American <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicist" title="Physicist" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">physicist</a> who has specialized in the study of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_physics" title="Atomic physics" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">atomic physics</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics" title="Optics" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">optics</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy" title="Spectroscopy" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">spectroscopy</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-Shaw_2-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-Shaw-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a></sup> He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[3]</a></sup> Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_University" title="Princeton University" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Princeton University</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-Shaw_2-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-Shaw-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a></sup> and a long-term member of the <b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON(advisory_group)" title="JASON (advisory group)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JASON advisory group</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-aip_1-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-aip-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[1]</a></sup> where he pioneered the development of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics" title="Adaptive optics" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">adaptive optics</a>.</b> </font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>From 1991 to 1993, Happer served as director of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy" title="United States Department of Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Department of Energy</a>'s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Science" title="Office of Science" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Office of Science</a> as part of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_HW_Bush" class="mw-redirect" title="George HW Bush" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">George H.W. Bush</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_George_H.W.Bush" title="Presidency of George H. W. Bush" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">administration</a>. He was dismissed from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy" title="United States Department of Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Department of Energy</a> in 1993 by the Clinton Administration after disagreements on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion" title="Ozone depletion" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">ozone hole</a></b>.<sup id="cite_ref-ozone_4-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-ozone-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[4]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style=""><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Happer, who is not a climate scientist, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial" title="Climate change denial" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">rejects the scientific consensus on climate change</a></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. In 2018, </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Donald Trump</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> appointed him to the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council" title="United States National Security Council" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">National Security Council</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> to counter evidence linking </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_emissions" class="mw-redirect" title="Carbon dioxide emissions" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">carbon dioxide emissions</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> to </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming" class="mw-redirect" title="Global warming" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">global warming</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</span><sup id="cite_ref-:0_5-0" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-:0-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[5]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-TRUMPphysicistEmails_6-0" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-TRUMPphysicistEmails-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[6]</a></sup></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b> He resigned from the council in 2019</b>.</span><sup id="cite_ref-:1_7-0" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-:1-7" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[7]</a></sup></font></p><div id="toc" class="toc" role="navigation" aria-labelledby="mw-toc-heading" style="border: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); padding: 7px; display: table;"><ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Early_life_and_education" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.5em;"><span class="toctext" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit;">Early life and education</span></span></font></a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Career" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.5em;">2</span><span class="toctext" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit;">Career</span></font></a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Views" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.5em;">3</span><span class="toctext" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit;">Views</span></font></a><ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Climate_change_position" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.5em;">3.1</span><span class="toctext" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit;">Climate change position</span></font></a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Political" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.5em;">3.2</span><span class="toctext" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit;">Political</span></font></a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Honors" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.5em;">4</span><span class="toctext" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit;">Honors</span></font></a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Selected_publications" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.5em;">5</span><span class="toctext" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit;">Selected publications</span></font></a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#See_also" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.5em;">6</span><span class="toctext" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit;">See also</span></font></a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#References" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.5em;">7</span><span class="toctext" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit;">References</span></font></a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-10" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#External_links" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.5em;">8</span><span class="toctext" style="display: table-cell; text-decoration: inherit;">External links</span></font></a></li></ul></div><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Early_life_and_education">Early life and education</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Happer was born in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellore" title="Vellore" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Vellore</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_India" class="mw-redirect" title="British India" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">British India</a>, the son of William Happer, a Scottish medical officer in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army" title="British Indian Army" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Indian Army</a>, and Gladys Morgan Happer, a medical missionary for the Lutheran Church of North Carolina. Happer spent the years of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II" title="World War II" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">World War II</a> with his mother in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Ridge,Tennessee" title="Oak Ridge, Tennessee" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Oak Ridge, Tennessee</a>. After the war and a return to India, his family emigrated to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina" title="North Carolina" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">North Carolina</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[8]</a></sup> He studied physics at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_North_Carolina" title="University of North Carolina" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">University of North Carolina</a>, graduating in 1960. He earned his doctorate at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_University" title="Princeton University" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Princeton University</a> in 1964.<sup id="cite_ref-Shaw_2-2" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-Shaw-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a></sup></font></p><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Career">Career</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Happer's academic career began at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University" title="Columbia University" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Columbia University</a>, where he eventually became a full <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor" title="Professor" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">professor</a> and director of the Columbia Radiation Laboratory.<sup id="cite_ref-Shaw_2-3" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-Shaw-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Happer joined the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON(advisory_group)" title="JASON (advisory group)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JASON advisory group</a> in 1976, and was still active there in 2005</b>.<sup id="cite_ref-aip_1-2" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-aip-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[1]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In 1980, he left Columbia to go to Princeton.<sup id="cite_ref-Shaw_2-4" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-Shaw-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a></sup> He is credited with a key insight in 1982 that made <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics" title="Adaptive optics" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">adaptive optics</a> possible: there is a layer of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium" title="Sodium" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">sodium</a> in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesosphere" title="Mesosphere" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">mesosphere</a>, at around 90 to 100 km of elevation, which could be lit by a laser beam to make an artificial <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_star" title="Guide star" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">guide star</a>. His idea was tested successfully by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA" title="DARPA" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">DARPA</a> but <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information" title="Classified information" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">classified</a> for possible military applications. The military-designed technology was partially unclassified in 1991, after the same idea was independently proposed by two French astronomers. In 1994, Happer and co-authors published a declassified version of the JASON reports on adaptive optics.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[9]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[10]</a></sup> Happer was chairman of the steering committee for JASON, from 1987 to 1990,<sup id="cite_ref-aip_1-3" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-aip-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[1]</a></sup> and was the Class of 1909 Professor of Physics at Princeton University from 1988 to 1991.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[11]</a></sup> In 1991, he joined the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy" title="United States Department of Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">United States Department of Energy</a> as director of energy research.<sup id="cite_ref-Shaw_2-5" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-Shaw-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a></sup><b> He served in that position until being dismissed in 1993 for his views on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer" title="Ozone layer" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">ozone layer</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-ozone_4-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-ozone-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[4]</a></sup> after which he returned to his position at Princeton.</b><sup id="cite_ref-Shaw_2-6" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-Shaw-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a></sup> He co-founded Magnetic Imaging Technologies Inc. in 1994.<sup id="cite_ref-Shaw_2-7" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-Shaw-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Happer describes his laboratory's research interests in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_physics" title="Atomic physics" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">atomic physics</a>: "we're interested in the mechanisms that limit the performance of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_pumping" title="Optical pumping" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">optical pumping</a> systems, such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clocks" class="mw-redirect" title="Atomic clocks" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">atomic clocks</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetometers" class="mw-redirect" title="Magnetometers" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">magnetometers</a>, and laser guide-star <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics" title="Adaptive optics" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">adaptive optics</a> systems."<sup id="cite_ref-12" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[12]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Happer has served as a trustee of the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MITRE_Corporation" class="mw-redirect" title="MITRE Corporation" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">MITRE Corporation</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lounsbery_Foundation" title="Richard Lounsbery Foundation" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Richard Lounsbery Foundation</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, and the </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Institute" class="mw-redirect" title="Marshall Institute" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Marshall Institute</a>,</span><sup id="cite_ref-Shaw_2-8" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-Shaw-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> of which he was chairman from 2006 until it was disbanded in 2015.</span><sup id="cite_ref-GMI1_13-0" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-GMI1-13" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[13]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style=""><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Happer is a co-founder and board member of an advocacy group called the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition" title="CO2 Coalition" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">CO<sub style="line-height: 1;">2</sub> Coalition</a>, established in 2015</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</span><sup id="cite_ref-14" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-14" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[14]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">He has described the group as aiming to "educate the public that increased atmospheric levels of CO<sub style="line-height: 1;">2</sub> will benefit the world".<sup id="cite_ref-ZH_15-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-ZH-15" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[15]</a></sup> The group has been funded by donations of over $100,000 from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Scaife" class="mw-redirect" title="Sarah Scaife" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Sarah Scaife</a> Foundation and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercer_Family_Foundation" title="Mercer Family Foundation" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Mercer Family Foundation</a> of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mercer" title="Robert Mercer" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Robert Mercer</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebekah_Mercer" title="Rebekah Mercer" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Rebekah Mercer</a>, as well as $50,000 each from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searle_Freedom_Trust" title="Searle Freedom Trust" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Searle Freedom Trust</a>, the Thomas W. Smith Foundation, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynde%26_Harry_Bradley_Foundation" class="mw-redirect" title="Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation</a>, and the Achelis and Bodman Foundation.</span><sup id="cite_ref-ZH_15-1" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-ZH-15" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[15]</a></sup></font></p><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Views">Views</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span></span></font></h2><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Climate_change_position">Climate change position</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span></span></font></h3><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Happer disagrees with the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change" title="Scientific consensus on climate change" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">scientific consensus on climate change</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, stating that "Some small fraction of the 1 °C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO</span><sub style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1;">2</sub><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, which is indeed a greenhouse gas", but argues that "most of the warming has probably been due to natural causes."</span><sup id="cite_ref-tbsinterview_16-0" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-tbsinterview-16" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[16]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Oppenheimer" title="Michael Oppenheimer" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Michael Oppenheimer</a> said that Happer’s claims are "simply not true" </b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures.</span><sup id="cite_ref-APS3_17-0" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-APS3-17" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[17]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Climate Science Watch published a point-by-point rebuttal to one of Happer’s articles.</span><sup id="cite_ref-18" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-18" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[18]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A petition that he coauthored to change the official position of the American Physical Society to a version that raised doubts about global warming was overwhelmingly rejected by the APS Council.</b><sup id="cite_ref-APS2_19-0" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-APS2-19" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[19]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist,<sup id="cite_ref-:0_5-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-:0-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[5]</a></sup> and says that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research.</span><sup id="cite_ref-APS3_17-1" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-APS3-17" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[17]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In May 2013, Happer and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt" title="Harrison Schmitt" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Harrison Schmitt</a> published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," in which they termed elevated atmospheric CO<sub style="line-height: 1;">2</sub> "a boon to plant life."<sup id="cite_ref-20" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-20" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[20]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-21" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-21" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[21]</a></sup> It was described by Ryan Chittum, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, in the Columbia Journalism Review as "shameful, even for the dismal standards" of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.<sup id="cite_ref-22" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-22" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[22]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>In 2014, Happer said that the "demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.</b>"<sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-23" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[23]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-24" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-24" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[24]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-25" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-25" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[25]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 102);">In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace" title="Greenpeace" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Greenpeace</a>. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions.</span><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Happer declined a fee for his work, calling it a "labor of love", but said that they could donate to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition" title="CO2 Coalition" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">CO<sub style="line-height: 1;">2</sub> Coalition</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, which suggested that he contact the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donors_Trust" title="Donors Trust" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Donors Trust</a></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b> to keep the source of the funds secret</b> as requested by the Greenpeace sting operation.<b> Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under U.S. law.</b> Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.</span><sup id="cite_ref-GuardianGreenpeace_26-0" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-GuardianGreenpeace-26" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[26]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> In an interview, Happer responded to the sting operation: "I was only interested in helping the 'client' to publicize my long-held views, not to peddle whatever message the 'client' had in mind ...<b> I have never taken a dime for any of my activities to educate the public that more CO</b></span><b><sub style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1;">2</sub><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> will benefit the world."</span></b><sup id="cite_ref-tbsinterview_16-1" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-tbsinterview-16" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[16]</a></sup></font></p><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Political">Political</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span></span></font></h3><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">In 2017 following the election of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Donald Trump</a> into office, Happer met with Trump to discuss his potential role of being his science adviser and said that he would take the job if it was offered.<sup id="cite_ref-TRUMPadviser_27-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-TRUMPadviser-27" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[27]</a></sup> Happer described Trump as "very attentive" and that the president's concerns "were that of a technically literate person</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">."</span><sup id="cite_ref-TRUMPadviser_27-1" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-TRUMPadviser-27" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[27]</a></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Hannah Devlin of </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The Guardian</span></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> guk wrote that <b>Happer "supports a controversial crackdown on the freedom of federal agency scientists to speak out about their findings,</b> arguing that mixed messages... have led to people disregarding all public health information."</span><sup id="cite_ref-TRUMPadviser_27-2" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-TRUMPadviser-27" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[27]</a></sup></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In early September 2018 it was announced that Happer would be appointed senior director of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Council" title="National Security Council" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">National Security Council</a> office for emerging technologies.<sup id="cite_ref-Hill9418_28-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-Hill9418-28" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[28]</a></sup> He resigned from the Council in September 2019, reportedly because his plan to review climate science did not receive sufficient support from the White House. It was shelved as some members of the administration, including <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_Droegemeier" title="Kelvin Droegemeier" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Kelvin Droegemeier</a>, believed it could harm Trump in his 2020 re-election campaign.</span><sup id="cite_ref-:1_7-1" class="reference" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-:1-7" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[7]</a> <b>RED BLUE TEAM?</b></sup></font></p><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Honors">Honors</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Happer is a fellow of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society" title="American Physical Society" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Physical Society</a>. Happer was elected as a member of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Arts_and_Sciences" title="American Academy of Arts and Sciences" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Academy of Arts and Sciences</a> in 1995 and a member of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences" title="National Academy of Sciences" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">National Academy of Sciences</a> in 1996.</b><sup id="cite_ref-29" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-29" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[29]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-30" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-30" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[30]</a></sup> He received a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Research_Fellowship" title="Sloan Research Fellowship" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sloan Research Fellowship</a> in 1967, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_P.Broida_Prize" title="Herbert P. Broida Prize" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Herbert P. Broida Prize</a> in 1997, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davisson%E2%80%93Germer_Prize_in_Atomic_or_Surface_Physics" title="Davisson–Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Davisson-Germer Prize</a> and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_and_Development_Council_of_New_Jersey#Thomas_Alva_Edison_Patent_Awards" title="Research and Development Council of New Jersey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Thomas Alva Edison Patent Award</a> in 2000.<sup id="cite_ref-Shaw_2-9" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-Shaw-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a></sup> In 2003, he was named the <b>Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_University" title="Princeton University" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Princeton University</a>.</b><sup id="cite_ref-31" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#cite_note-31" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[31]</a></sup> Currently, he is a Professor Emeritus.</font></p><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="Selected_publications">Selected publications</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span></span></font></h2><ul style="list-style-image: url(" w="w" skins="skins" vector="Vector" resources="resources" common="common" images="images" bullet-icon.svg="bullet-icon.svg" d4515="d4515" margin="margin" em="em" px="px" padding="padding" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thad G. Walker and William Happer, "Spin-exchange optical pumping of noble-gas nuclei": Rev. Mod. Phys. 69, 629–642 (1997). <a href="https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.69.629" class="extiw" title="doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.69.629" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.69.629</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">W. Happer, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_J.F.MacDonald" title="Gordon J. F. MacDonald" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">G. J. MacDonald</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Ellen_Max" title="Claire Ellen Max" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">C. E. Max</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson" title="Freeman Dyson" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">F. J. Dyson</a>, "Atmospheric-turbulence compensation by resonant optical backscattering from the sodium layer in the upper atmosphere," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 263-276 (1994): <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?id=582" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">abstract</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer, "Optical Pumping": Review of Modern Physics, vol. 44, Issue 2, pp. 169–249 (1972). <a href="https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.44.169" class="extiw" title="doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.44.169" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">DOI:10.1103/RevModPhys.44.169</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer, "Why has global warming paused?": International Journal of Modern Physics A Vol. 29, No. 07 (2014) <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217751X14600033" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">worldscientific.com</a></font></li></ul><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="See_also">See also</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span></span></font></h2><ul style="list-style-image: url(" w="w" skins="skins" vector="Vector" resources="resources" common="common" images="images" bullet-icon.svg="bullet-icon.svg" d4515="d4515" margin="margin" em="em" px="px" padding="padding" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion" title="Ozone depletion" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Ozone depletion</font></a></li></ul></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">----</font></div><div><h2 class="ext-discussiontools-init-section" style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="id" data-mw-comment="{" type="type" heading="heading" level="level" h-reason_magazine_article-2009-12-13t10:57="h-Reason_magazine_article-2009-12-13T10:57" replies="replies" c-flegelpuss-2009-12-13t10:57="c-Flegelpuss-2009-12-13T10:57" headinglevel="headingLevel" placeholderheading="placeholderHeading" false="false" xmlns:c-flegelpuss-2009-12-13t10="c-flegelpuss-2009-12-13t10" xmlns:h-reason_magazine_article-2009-12-13t10="h-reason_magazine_article-2009-12-13t10">Reason magazine article<span data-mw-comment-end="h-Reason_magazine_article-2009-12-13T10:57:00.000Z"><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span></span></span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Flegelpuss-2009-12-13T10:57:00.000Z-Reason_magazine_article" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">The article is from Reason Magazine which is an RS. I plan to remove the "unreliable" tag. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flegelpuss" title="User:Flegelpuss" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Flegelpuss</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flegelpuss" title="User talk:Flegelpuss" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 10:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Flegelpuss-2009-12-13T10:57:00.000Z-Reason_magazine_article" /></span></font></p><h2 class="ext-discussiontools-init-section" style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="id" data-mw-comment="{" type="type" heading="heading" level="level" h-william_happer_very_notable-2009-12-13t11:05="h-William_Happer_very_notable-2009-12-13T11:05" replies="replies" c-flegelpuss-2009-12-13t11:05="c-Flegelpuss-2009-12-13T11:05" headinglevel="headingLevel" placeholderheading="placeholderHeading" false="false" xmlns:c-flegelpuss-2009-12-13t11="c-flegelpuss-2009-12-13t11" xmlns:h-william_happer_very_notable-2009-12-13t11="h-william_happer_very_notable-2009-12-13t11"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="h-William_Happer_very_notable-2009-12-13T11:05:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">William Happer very notable<span data-mw-comment-end="h-William_Happer_very_notable-2009-12-13T11:05:00.000Z"><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Happer&action=edit§ion=2" title="Edit section: William Happer very notable" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none; white-space: nowrap;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0.25em;">]</span></span></span></span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Flegelpuss-2009-12-13T11:05:00.000Z-William_Happer_very_notable" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">The article is notable for several reasons any one of which by itself is sufficient for having a bio in Wikipedia. One, Happ was a director of the U.S. Department of Energy, which controls America's nuclear weapons technology and energy research. Two, he was involved in an (in)famous incident where he was fired from this position, allegedly because of his alleged ozone layer skepticism. Three, he is listed in the top ten among climate warming skeptics <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7#will-happer-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">[1]</a>. Therefore, I plan to remove the tag questioning notability. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flegelpuss" title="User:Flegelpuss" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Flegelpuss</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flegelpuss" title="User talk:Flegelpuss" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 11:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Latichever-2013-05-11T19:18:00.000Z-Creeping_Bias" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">I removed the item regarding Freeman Dyson being a "prominent climate skeptic". First of all, it's not true (I know Freeman personally). Second, it is the scientific equivalent of calling him a heretic. It is a very negative comment and should not be present without backing it up with documentation. Freeman is an extremely distinguished physicist, and to reduce him to "climate skeptic" in Happer's biography is inappropriate.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I agree that climate skeptic should be removed, but it should be replaced by "holds discredited views on climate science." This is no different from being a creationist or believer in the geocentric model of the solar system. At the very least, it should not that a specialist in optics has no scientific standing to advance a view on climate science. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Latichever&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User:Latichever (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Latichever</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Latichever" title="User talk:Latichever" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 19:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Latichever-2013-05-11T19:18:00.000Z-Creeping_Bias" /></font></p><h2 class="ext-discussiontools-init-section" style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="id" data-mw-comment="{" type="type" heading="heading" level="level" h-blp_noticeboard-2015-10-30t18:15="h-BLP_noticeboard-2015-10-30T18:15" replies="replies" c-peter_gulutzan-2015-10-30t18:15="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-10-30T18:15" c-elvey-2015-12-15t16:55="c-Elvey-2015-12-15T16:55" c-peter_gulutzan-2015-12-20t16:38="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-12-20T16:38" headinglevel="headingLevel" placeholderheading="placeholderHeading" false="false" xmlns:c-elvey-2015-12-15t16="c-elvey-2015-12-15t16" xmlns:c-peter_gulutzan-2015-10-30t18="c-peter_gulutzan-2015-10-30t18" xmlns:c-peter_gulutzan-2015-12-20t16="c-peter_gulutzan-2015-12-20t16" xmlns:h-blp_noticeboard-2015-10-30t18="h-blp_noticeboard-2015-10-30t18"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="h-BLP_noticeboard-2015-10-30T18:15:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">BLP noticeboard<span data-mw-comment-end="h-BLP_noticeboard-2015-10-30T18:15:00.000Z"><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Happer&action=edit§ion=4" title="Edit section: BLP noticeboard" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none; white-space: nowrap;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0.25em;">]</span></span></span></span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><s><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-10-30T18:15:00.000Z-BLP_noticeboard" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once.</span></s><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User talk:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 18:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Update:<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-10-30T18:15:00.000Z-BLP_noticeboard" /></font></p><div role="note" class="resolved" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-left: 1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div style="display: inline-block; border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); background-color: rgb(249, 252, 249); margin-right: 0.5em; padding: 0.3em 0.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Elvey-2015-12-15T16:55:00.000Z-BLP_noticeboard" style="position: relative; top: -1em;"><img alt="" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png" decoding="async" width="20" height="20" srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/30px-Yes_check.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/40px-Yes_check.svg.png 2x" data-file-width="600" data-file-height="600" style="border: 0px; vertical-align: middle;" /> Resolved</span></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div> – The category was deleted. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elvey" title="User:Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Elvey</a><sup style="line-height: 1;">(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elvey" title="User talk:Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">t</a>•<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elvey" title="Special:Contributions/Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">c</a>)</sup> 16:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Elvey-2015-12-15T16:55:00.000Z-BLP_noticeboard" /></div><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-12-20T16:38:00.000Z-BLP_noticeboard" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#109_BLP_articles_labelled.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">WP:BLPN</a> and <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">WP:CFD</a> the category was deleted. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User talk:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 16:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-12-20T16:38:00.000Z-BLP_noticeboard" /></span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><h2 class="ext-discussiontools-init-section" style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="Greenpeace.22sting.22_BLP_problem"><span class="mw-headline" id="id" sting="sting" _blp_problem="BLP_problem" data-mw-comment="{" type="type" heading="heading" level="level" h-greenpeace="h-Greenpeace" blp_problem-2015-12-10t15:27="BLP_problem-2015-12-10T15:27" replies="replies" c-tillman-2015-12-10t15:27="c-Tillman-2015-12-10T15:27" c-peter_gulutzan-2015-12-15t16:34="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-12-15T16:34" headinglevel="headingLevel" placeholderheading="placeholderHeading" false="false" xmlns:blp_problem-2015-12-10t15="blp_problem-2015-12-10t15" xmlns:c-peter_gulutzan-2015-12-15t16="c-peter_gulutzan-2015-12-15t16" xmlns:c-tillman-2015-12-10t15="c-tillman-2015-12-10t15"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="h-Greenpeace" sting="sting" _blp_problem-2015-12-10t15:27="BLP_problem-2015-12-10T15:27" style="position: relative; top: -1em;" xmlns:blp_problem-2015-12-10t15="blp_problem-2015-12-10t15">Greenpe</span></span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Tillman-2015-12-10T15:27:00.000Z-Greenpeace" sting="sting" _blp_problem="BLP_problem" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">This newly-added account is one-sided. Happer's account of the incident isn't given, and other commentators describe the "sting" as a Greenpeace political stunt. Also appears to violate <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTNEWS" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:NOTNEWS" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">WP:NOTNEWS</a>. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tillman" title="User:Tillman" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Pete Tillman</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tillman" title="User talk:Tillman" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 15:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Tillman-2015-12-10T15:27:00.000Z-Greenpeace" sting="sting" _blp_problem="BLP_problem" /></span></font></p><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Elvey-2015-12-13T01:58:00.000Z-Tillman-2015-12-10T15:27:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Yes, the account is one-sided. What various major news sources say, including Happer's account, should be given appropriate weight per <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:NPOV" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">WP:NPOV</a>. It's available at <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/12/08/greenpeace-founder-reports-it-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word">http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/12/08/greenpeace-founder-reports-it-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/</a>, which may be a RS for the purpose of reporting what Happer has said, and which is linked to from <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/08/patrick-moore-reports-enemy-state-greenpeace-fbi/" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word">http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/08/patrick-moore-reports-enemy-state-greenpeace-fbi/</a>. I see no <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTNEWS" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:NOTNEWS" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">WP:NOTNEWS</a> issue. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elvey" title="User:Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Elvey</a><sup style="line-height: 1;">(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elvey" title="User talk:Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">t</a>•<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elvey" title="Special:Contributions/Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">c</a>)</sup> 01:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Elvey-2015-12-13T01:58:00.000Z-Tillman-2015-12-10T15:27:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-12-15T16:34:00.000Z-Greenpeace" sting="sting" _blp_problem="BLP_problem" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">On December 10 2015 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elvey" title="User:Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">User:Elvey</a> changed a sentence in the lead "Happer is a vocal <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_skepticism" title="Environmental skepticism" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">skeptic</a> of certain statements regarding <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming" class="mw-redirect" title="Global warming" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">global warming</a>." to "Happer is known for accepting covert compensation from fossil fuel companies to make vocal <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_skepticism" title="Environmental skepticism" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">skeptic</a> statements regarding <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming" class="mw-redirect" title="Global warming" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">global warming</a>." (cite = a Guardian article) Later <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:207.98.198.84&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User:207.98.198.84 (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">User:207.98.198.84</a> changed "skeptic" to "denialist". Even the Guardian doesn't say such things, so I restored the original sentence. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User talk:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 16:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-12-15T16:34:00.000Z-Greenpeace" sting="sting" _blp_problem="BLP_problem" /></span></font></p><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Elvey-2015-12-15T16:47:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-12-15T16:34:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">The sentence "Happer is known for accepting covert compensation from fossil fuel companies to make vocal skeptic statements regarding global warming." is verifiable, using the Guardian source. I don't claim that the sentence is lifted from the Guardian; that would be plagiarism. Actually "Happer is known for agreeing to accept covert compensation from fossil fuel companies to make vocal skeptic statements regarding global warming." is better; he accepted the plan to compensate him covertly, but Greenpeace didn't actually send him the money. Some mention is clearly needed in the lede. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elvey" title="User:Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Elvey</a><sup style="line-height: 1;">(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elvey" title="User talk:Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">t</a>•<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elvey" title="Special:Contributions/Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">c</a>)</sup> 16:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Elvey-2015-12-15T16:47:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-12-15T16:34:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-12-16T16:16:00.000Z-Elvey-2015-12-15T16:47:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Did he accept or request that he be compensated? No. Did he say his skeptic views were due to potential compensation? No. Does The Guardian say he's "known for" that? No. Is an accusation from Greenpeace such a defining characteristic that it belongs as a statement of fact in a BLP's lead? No. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User talk:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 16:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-12-16T16:16:00.000Z-Elvey-2015-12-15T16:47:00.000Z" /></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Elvey-2015-12-27T01:33:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-12-16T16:16:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Those are straw men. Is he "known for agreeing to accept covert compensation from fossil fuel companies for making vocal skeptic statements regarding global warming?" Yes. The Guardian article DOES indicate that he's known for that. The Guardian article does NOT literally say he's "known for" that. What part of 'I don't claim that the sentence is lifted from the Guardian; that would be plagiarism.' do you not understand? --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elvey" title="User:Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Elvey</a><sup style="line-height: 1;">(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elvey" title="User talk:Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">t</a>•<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elvey" title="Special:Contributions/Elvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">c</a>)</sup> 01:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Elvey-2015-12-27T01:33:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2015-12-16T16:16:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl><h2 class="ext-discussiontools-init-section" style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="id" data-mw-comment="{" type="type" heading="heading" level="level" h-happer_interview_on_climate_change-2017-01-26t17:21="h-Happer_Interview_on_Climate_Change-2017-01-26T17:21" replies="replies" c-blogrodent-2017-01-26t17:21="c-BlogRodent-2017-01-26T17:21" headinglevel="headingLevel" placeholderheading="placeholderHeading" false="false" xmlns:c-blogrodent-2017-01-26t17="c-blogrodent-2017-01-26t17" xmlns:h-happer_interview_on_climate_change-2017-01-26t17="h-happer_interview_on_climate_change-2017-01-26t17"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="h-Happer_Interview_on_Climate_Change-2017-01-26T17:21:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Happer Interview on Climate Change<span data-mw-comment-end="h-Happer_Interview_on_Climate_Change-2017-01-26T17:21:00.000Z"><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Happer&action=edit§ion=6" title="Edit section: Happer Interview on Climate Change" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none; white-space: nowrap;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0.25em;">]</span></span></span></span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-BlogRodent-2017-01-26T17:21:00.000Z-Happer_Interview_on_Climate_Change" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">I’m leaving this here on the Talk Page so that an editor without a conflict of interest can decide whether or not to include a reference to this in the article. My employer conducted a lengthy interview with Happer some time back and it’s a thorough piece that covers a lot of what Happer claims about the environment, CO2, and more. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">William Happer Interview</a>. Of related interest may be the "Focused Civil Dialogue" (read: debate) between Happer and David Karoly, PhD., here: <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">Karoly–Happer Dialogue on Global Warming</a>. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlogRodent" title="User:BlogRodent" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">BlogRodent</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlogRodent&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:BlogRodent (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 17:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-BlogRodent-2017-01-26T17:21:00.000Z-Happer_Interview_on_Climate_Change" /></span></font></p><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="template-ping"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Starship.paint-2019-05-29T08:54:00.000Z-BlogRodent-2017-01-26T17:21:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">@<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlogRodent" title="User:BlogRodent" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">BlogRodent</a>:</span> - I would consider this a primary source, but I have added it as Happer has the right to respond to the operation. <b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Starship.paint" title="User:Starship.paint" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">starship</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Starship.paint" title="Special:Contributions/Starship.paint" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">.paint</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starship.paint" title="User talk:Starship.paint" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>)</b> 08:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Starship.paint-2019-05-29T08:54:00.000Z-BlogRodent-2017-01-26T17:21:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl><h2 class="ext-discussiontools-init-section" style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="id" data-mw-comment="{" type="type" heading="heading" level="level" h-quote_about_a_cult-2017-02-17t15:20="h-Quote_about_a_cult-2017-02-17T15:20" replies="replies" c-peter_gulutzan-2017-02-17t15:20="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-17T15:20" c-peter_gulutzan-2017-02-20t14:50="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-20T14:50" headinglevel="headingLevel" placeholderheading="placeholderHeading" false="false" xmlns:c-peter_gulutzan-2017-02-17t15="c-peter_gulutzan-2017-02-17t15" xmlns:c-peter_gulutzan-2017-02-20t14="c-peter_gulutzan-2017-02-20t14" xmlns:h-quote_about_a_cult-2017-02-17t15="h-quote_about_a_cult-2017-02-17t15"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="h-Quote_about_a_cult-2017-02-17T15:20:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Quote about a cult<span data-mw-comment-end="h-Quote_about_a_cult-2017-02-17T15:20:00.000Z"><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Happer&action=edit§ion=7" title="Edit section: Quote about a cult" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none; white-space: nowrap;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0.25em;">]</span></span></span></span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Btyner" title="User:Btyner" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-17T15:20:00.000Z-Quote_about_a_cult" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Btyner</span></a> supported by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nomoskedasticity" title="User:Nomoskedasticity" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Nomoskedasticity</a> insists on adding this sentence: "In February 2017 Happer described climate scientists (without specifying any in particular) as “a glassy-eyed cult.”[29]" The cited source (the Guardian) says that Happer's actual words were: “There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult [.] It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science.” Thus (a) Happer didn't use the words "a glassy-eyed cult" so putting this in quotes as Happer's words is a mistake; (b) Happer didn't say he was talking about "climate scientists" he could as easily have been thinking about people who call their statements "science", but aren't scientists. I suggested "actually quoting Happer verbatim might be okay" though it's arguably not an important or defining quote. But a flat-out misquote is not okay. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User talk:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 15:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-17T15:20:00.000Z-Quote_about_a_cult" /></font></p><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Nomoskedasticity-2017-02-17T15:38:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-17T15:20:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Sounds like you might want to contact the Guardian and ask for a correction. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nomoskedasticity" title="User:Nomoskedasticity" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Nomoskedasticity</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nomoskedasticity" title="User talk:Nomoskedasticity" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 15:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Nomoskedasticity-2017-02-17T15:38:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-17T15:20:00.000Z" /></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-18T15:24:00.000Z-Nomoskedasticity-2017-02-17T15:38:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">The accurate, longer quotation seems better to me than the somewhat-inaccurate, shorter quotation-version made by the Guardian (in my initial view, for what little that's worth). And the accurate quotation (in the first paragraph above) might be readily acceptable to all. (Also, the accurate quotation could be shortened significantly, with ellipsis marks of course.) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bo99" title="User:Bo99" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Bo99</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bo99" title="User talk:Bo99" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 16:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC</span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I think you mean something like 'In February 2017 Happer said "There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult ... They're glassy-eyed and they chant."' Any objections? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User talk:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 15:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-18T15:24:00.000Z-Nomoskedasticity-2017-02-17T15:38:00.000Z" /></font></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Tillman-2017-02-18T17:52:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-18T15:24:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">At the moment, we have " Happer described climate scientists (without specifying any in particular) as “a glassy-eyed cult.” (cited to The Guardian, a hostile source). This doesn't seem to add anything to the article & could be construed as borderline pejorative. Propose striking the line. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tillman" title="User:Tillman" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Pete Tillman</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tillman" title="User talk:Tillman" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 17:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Tillman-2017-02-18T17:52:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-18T15:24:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Bo99-2017-02-19T09:09:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-18T15:24:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">hi Peter Gulutzan, Yes, your shortened quotation above seems roughly ok, in my view, for what that's worth. But my preference would be, 'There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult[.] ... It will potentially harm the image of all science.' That's the first sentence plus the fourth sentence. The omission of the second and third sentences would be because the first sentence, about a cult, essentially subsumes the second sentence, about Hare Krishna, and also the third sentence, about chanting. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bo99" title="User:Bo99" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Bo99</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bo99" title="User talk:Bo99" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 09:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Bo99-2017-02-19T09:09:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-18T15:24:00.000Z" /></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-19T15:29:00.000Z-Bo99-2017-02-19T09:09:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">I agree with Pete Tillman, striking would be the best action. But we're dealing with insistent editors (Btyner re-inserted without discussion when I reverted, and Nomoskedasticity supported Btyner's re-insertion). Bo99's suggested words are a compromise, and I'd like to show we're willing to compromise by accepting them. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User talk:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 15:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-19T15:29:00.000Z-Bo99-2017-02-19T09:09:00.000Z" /></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Nomoskedasticity-2017-02-19T15:45:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-19T15:29:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">I'll agree to that. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nomoskedasticity" title="User:Nomoskedasticity" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Nomoskedasticity</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nomoskedasticity" title="User talk:Nomoskedasticity" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 15:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Nomoskedasticity-2017-02-19T15:45:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-19T15:29:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Btyner-2017-02-21T12:25:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-19T15:29:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">For the record, my re-insertion was merely an attempt to address the issue Peter raised in the edit summary: 'Happer wasn't clear about who "they" are'; I wasn't trying to make trouble and fully agree that we shouldn't misquote people. Peter's new version is an improvement. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Btyner" title="User:Btyner" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Btyner</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Btyner" title="User talk:Btyner" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Btyner-2017-02-21T12:25:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-19T15:29:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl><hr style="box-sizing: content-box; height: 1px; overflow: visible; background-color: rgb(162, 169, 177); border: 0px; margin: 0.2em 0px;" /><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-20T14:50:00.000Z-Quote_about_a_cult" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">I have changed so that the text is: Happer said "There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult ... It will potentially harm the image of all science." <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User talk:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 14:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-20T14:50:00.000Z-Quote_about_a_cult" /></span></font></p><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Tillman-2017-02-20T23:11:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-20T14:50:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">More encyclopedic, less inflammatory. Thank you , <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tillman" title="User:Tillman" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Pete Tillman</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tillman" title="User talk:Tillman" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 23:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Tillman-2017-02-20T23:11:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-20T14:50:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Btyner-2017-02-21T12:25:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-20T14:50:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Yes, thank you Peter. Best, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Btyner" title="User:Btyner" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Btyner</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Btyner" title="User talk:Btyner" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Btyner-2017-02-21T12:25:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-02-20T14:50:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl><h2 class="ext-discussiontools-init-section" style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="Trump_adviser.3F"><span class="mw-headline" id="id" data-mw-comment="{" type="type" heading="heading" level="level" h-trump_adviser="h-Trump_adviser" t20:53="T20:53" replies="replies" c-tillman-2017-02-19t20:53="c-Tillman-2017-02-19T20:53" headinglevel="headingLevel" placeholderheading="placeholderHeading" false="false" xmlns:c-tillman-2017-02-19t20="c-tillman-2017-02-19t20" xmlns:t20="t20"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="h-Trump_adviser?-2017-02-19T20:53:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Trump adviser?<span data-mw-comment-end="h-Trump_adviser?-2017-02-19T20:53:00.000Z"><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Happer&action=edit§ion=8" title="Edit section: Trump adviser?" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none; white-space: nowrap;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0.25em;">]</span></span></span></span></span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Tillman-2017-02-19T20:53:00.000Z-Trump_adviser?" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">I've seen a couple of press reports mentioning Happer as a possible Climate science adviser to the new administration. Might be premature for our article, but provides a likely explanation for those seeking to include the "glassy-eyed" bit, above....--<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tillman" title="User:Tillman" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Pete Tillman</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tillman" title="User talk:Tillman" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 20:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Tillman-2017-02-19T20:53:00.000Z-Trump_adviser?" /></span></font></p><ul style="list-style-image: url(" w="w" skins="skins" vector="Vector" resources="resources" common="common" images="images" bullet-icon.svg="bullet-icon.svg" d4515="d4515" margin="margin" em="em" px="px" padding="padding" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Fred_Bauder-2018-09-05T13:20:00.000Z-Tillman-2017-02-19T20:53:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Yes, <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/405043-noted-climate-skeptic-to-advise-trump-on-emerging-technologies" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word">http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/405043-noted-climate-skeptic-to-advise-trump-on-emerging-technologies</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fred_Bauder" title="User:Fred Bauder" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">User:Fred Bauder</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder" title="User talk:Fred Bauder" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Talk</a> 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Fred_Bauder-2018-09-05T13:20:00.000Z-Tillman-2017-02-19T20:53:00.000Z" /></span></font></li></ul><h2 class="ext-discussiontools-init-section" style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="Secondary_Sources.3F"><span class="mw-headline" id="id" data-mw-comment="{" type="type" heading="heading" level="level" h-secondary_sources="h-Secondary_Sources" t19:21="T19:21" replies="replies" c-jayanta_sen-2017-05-10t19:21="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-10T19:21" headinglevel="headingLevel" placeholderheading="placeholderHeading" false="false" xmlns:c-jayanta_sen-2017-05-10t19="c-jayanta_sen-2017-05-10t19" xmlns:t19="t19"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="h-Secondary_Sources?-2017-05-10T19:21:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Secondary Sources?<span data-mw-comment-end="h-Secondary_Sources?-2017-05-10T19:21:00.000Z"><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Happer&action=edit§ion=9" title="Edit section: Secondary Sources?" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none; white-space: nowrap;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0.25em;">]</span></span></span></span></span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-10T19:21:00.000Z-Secondary_Sources?" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">The editor Joel Lewis has deleted a lot of stuff [<a class="external autonumber" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Happer&type=revision&diff=779181401&oldid=779083505" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">[2]</a>] from this article on the basis of lack of secondary sources. While I understand that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, according to Wiki rules material from primary sources should be deleted?</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thanks,</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayanta_Sen" title="User:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JS</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayanta_Sen" title="User talk:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 19:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-10T19:21:00.000Z-Secondary_Sources?" /></font></p><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-10T20:29:00.000Z-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-10T19:21:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Thank you for calling attention to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Joel B. Lewis's</a> (JBL's) edits in the last week, which appear contentious to me. If we accepted JBL's edit summaries saying "no secondary source", then any statement that a BLP subject makes would be disallowed -- I don't see how <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:PRIMARY" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">WP:PRIMARY</a> allows such an interpretation, and I don't know what else JBL could be referring to (the edit summaries don't explain) -- but please consider the rest of the edits too. JBL also <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Happer&diff=779178434&oldid=779178340" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">removed a reference to an article by Happer "and 15 others"</a>, as if that too violates a supposed primary-source restriction. JBL also <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Happer&diff=prev&oldid=779179140" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">added a statement</a> that the Wall Street Journal editorial page "is known for its denialism of climate science" with a cite to a journal that doesn't say that. JBL also <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Happer&diff=779179317&oldid=779179140" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">removed a quote by Happer</a> because a source was used to "support" quotes by Happer, without saying what policy that supposedly violates. JBL also <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Happer&diff=next&oldid=779179317" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">replaced statements based on sympathetic or neutral sources with statements based on critical blogs</a>, which I claim is not allowed according to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPSPS" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:BLPSPS" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">WP:BLPSPS</a>. And most recently, when an editor reverted a tiny part of JBL's edits, JBL simply <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Happer&diff=779274312&oldid=779257658" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">re-reverted with a one-word edit summary to keep the contentious material in</a>, which I claim is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTRESTORE" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTRESTORE" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE</a> violation. According to WP:BLP poorly sourced and contentious edits should be removed immediately, but since JBL simply re-inserts I suppose we should see first whether there is a strong consensus to keep them. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User talk:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 20:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-10T20:29:00.000Z-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-10T19:21:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-10T23:33:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-10T20:29:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">To make an obvious point: the previous version was written in a deeply and intentionally misleading way. Highlights of this were</span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(1) the use of a critical source for the purpose of verifying that Happer wrote something, without any mention of the fact that the source was a detailed evisceration of what he wrote, and</font></dd><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(2) the ridiculous sentence "Among other responses, climate scientist Michael MacCracken published a detailed critique," which managed to avoid saying anything whatsoever about the nature of the critique.</font></dd></dl></dd><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Perhaps 90% of the text consisted of quotes from Happer with references that demonstrated that he said the quoted things. This is totally unacceptable, as it provides no evidence that the statements are noteworthy and fails to provide a context to evaluate the quotes. In this case, this is particularly problematic because essentially all of the quotes consisted of false, misleading, or fringe statements. (The couple not covered by the preceding sentence were equally shoddy work, but were added presumably to paint Happer in a negative light, rather than to promote his fringe position.)</font></dd><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The current version (after my edits) is still a piece of junk, and it needs someone who cares about the quality of Wikipedia articles to rewrite it in a halfway decent way. But it at least has the virtue that it does not repeatedly present false statements without reliable sourcing. Any move back towards the previous version would certainly be in the wrong direction.</font></dd><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Incidentally, someone should probably add to the lead that Happer is primarily notable for being a climate denialist (perhaps not in those words) -- somehow, despite the thousands of bytes of text that were devoted to this in the body, it has been overlooked in the lead. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JBL</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User talk:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 23:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-10T23:33:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-10T20:29:00.000Z" /></font></dd></dl></dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-10T23:51:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-10T20:29:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Separately, thank you <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a> for directing this discussion here from your talk page -- I appreciate it. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JBL</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User talk:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 23:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-10T23:51:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-10T20:29:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl></dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-12T04:35:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-10T23:51:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">If you don't like statements like "Among other responses, climate scientist Michael MacCracken published a detailed critique," then you should delete such statements. As this page is about Happer, what he says on different topics is noteworthy and should not be deleted just because they come from primary sources. Thanks, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayanta_Sen" title="User:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JS</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayanta_Sen" title="User talk:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 04:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-12T04:35:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-10T23:51:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-12T13:07:00.000Z-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-12T04:35:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">No, this is completely wrong and incompatible with encyclopedic coverage of an individual. We should quote subjects of biographies exactly as much as their exact words are significant; and significance is judged by looking at secondary sources. In Happer's case, he is quoted in reliable secondary sources almost exclusively as part of debunkings, refutations, and rebuttals, and therefore any section based on proper sourcing must consist primarily of negative critical responses. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JBL</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User talk:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 13:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-12T13:07:00.000Z-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-12T04:35:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-14T22:49:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-12T13:07:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Statements like "The current version (after my edits) is still a piece of junk, and it needs someone who cares about the quality of Wikipedia articles to rewrite it in a halfway decent way" are merely opinions. It is appropriate to quote the subject of an article. If you wish to add secondary sources judging what Happer said, then that is fine. Deleting what Happer said is censorship. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayanta_Sen" title="User:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JS</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayanta_Sen" title="User talk:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 22:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-14T22:49:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-12T13:07:00.000Z" /></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris-2017-05-15T00:57:00.000Z-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-14T22:49:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Without commenting one way or another on the specifics of this particular case, I must point out that accusations of "censorship" are thrown around far too lightly at Wikipedia. Such accusations generally reflect more poorly on the accuser than the accused. See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:AGF" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">WP:AGF</a>, as well as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliche" class="mw-redirect" title="Thought-terminating cliche" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">thought-terminating cliche</a>. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris" title="User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Shock Brigade Harvester Boris</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris" title="User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 00:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris-2017-05-15T00:57:00.000Z-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-14T22:49:00.000Z" /></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T13:11:00.000Z-Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris-2017-05-15T00:57:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Have you checked the mass deletions of Happer's statements and writings that are the subject of this thread?<small class="autosigned" style="">— Preceding <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures" title="Wikipedia:Signatures" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">unsigned</a> comment added by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayanta_Sen" title="User:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Jayanta Sen</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayanta_Sen#top" title="User talk:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a> • <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jayanta_Sen" title="Special:Contributions/Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">contribs</a>)</small></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Obviously it is acceptable <i>in principle</i> to quote Happer in the article. But you have completely failed to acknowledge that it is not acceptable to quote him<i> in the previous style and format</i> of the article before I improved it. Happer has no right to have his false statements presented uncritically in his biography, and if you think otherwise then you shouldn't edit BLPs. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JBL</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User talk:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 13:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T13:11:00.000Z-Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris-2017-05-15T00:57:00.000Z" /></font></dd><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T13:14:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T13:11:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">P.S. Maybe instead of whining you could make a concrete suggestion of an edit, and then everyone can see how your comments are related improving the article. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JBL</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User talk:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 13:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T13:14:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T13:11:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayanta_Sen" title="User:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-15T16:28:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T13:11:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">JS</span></a>: My concrete suggestion was <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Happer&diff=779760595&oldid=779749387" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">"removal of edits by editor JBL"</a>. Do you have a different proposal? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User talk:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 16:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-15T16:28:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T13:11:00.000Z" /></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><small style=""><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T16:37:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-15T16:28:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Obviously it is your right to propose this, but there is 0 chance that there will be consensus for it once a wider collection of editors has weighed in, so I don't really see the point in suggesting it. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JBL</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User talk:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 16:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)</span></small><span data-mw-comment-end="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T16:37:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-15T16:28:00.000Z" /></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-15T18:12:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T16:37:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">In the absence of consensus for the removal, I assume the article should be reverted to the original as long as it does not violate any Wiki rules. This is an article about Happer. I think it is highly appropriate to hear what the man has to say about different topics as published in RS. If he says something wrong, there can be secondary sources pointing that out. To deny him the opportunity to say what he believes is nothing other than censorship. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayanta_Sen" title="User:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JS</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayanta_Sen" title="User talk:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-15T18:12:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T16:37:00.000Z" /></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Nomoskedasticity-2017-05-15T18:26:00.000Z-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-15T18:12:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">"hear what the man has to say"?? That's quite silly -- he has said a great many things, and the way to know what we should include is to gauge the attention they have received in secondary sources. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nomoskedasticity" title="User:Nomoskedasticity" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Nomoskedasticity</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nomoskedasticity" title="User talk:Nomoskedasticity" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 18:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Nomoskedasticity-2017-05-15T18:26:00.000Z-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-15T18:12:00.000Z" /></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-15T19:21:00.000Z-Nomoskedasticity-2017-05-15T18:26:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Please do remain civil. "Silly" is not an adjective that I usually hear when my opinions are discussed. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayanta_Sen" title="User:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JS</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayanta_Sen" title="User talk:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 19:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-15T19:21:00.000Z-Nomoskedasticity-2017-05-15T18:26:00.000Z" /></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T20:13:00.000Z-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-15T19:21:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">The previous version violates the "wiki-rules" <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:SOURCES" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">WP:SOURCES</a> ("Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:NPOV" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">WP:NPOV</a> ("Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."). There is 0 chance that it or anything like it is going to be restored. Please try to be serious. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JBL</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User talk:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 20:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T20:13:00.000Z-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-15T19:21:00.000Z" /></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-16T05:04:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T20:13:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">As the disagreement is about the use of primary sources, the relevant Wiki rules are the rules for primary sources [<a class="external autonumber" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">[3]</a>]. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayanta_Sen" title="User:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JS</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayanta_Sen" title="User talk:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-16T05:04:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T20:13:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayanta_Sen" title="User:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-16T15:56:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T13:11:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">JS</span></a>: though our concerns differ, we agree that JBL's edits of May 6-8 shouild be removed. But, to avoid making the issue "JBL's conduct", I suggest we frame it as: here is the earlier version (as of <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Happer&diff=779055753&oldid=778681231" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">before JBL's first May 6 revert</a>), here is the later version (as of <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Happer&diff=779274312&oldid=779257658" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">after JBL's last May 8 revert</a>), itemize each objection to the later version, and then <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:RFC" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">WP:RFC</a>. Alternatively: if you don't like the effort and heat, just say so and we'll let JBL have his way. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User talk:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 15:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-16T15:56:00.000Z-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-15T13:11:00.000Z" /></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-16T16:11:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-16T15:56:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">It is pretty remarkable that "how to make the section better" does not seem to be an interesting question to either of you! --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JBL</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joel_B.Lewis" class="mw-redirect" title="User talk:Joel B. Lewis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 16:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2017-05-16T16:11:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-16T15:56:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-16T17:43:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-16T15:56:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Hi <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Gulutzan" title="User:Peter Gulutzan" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Peter Gulutzan</a>:, as the book I am writing is only four years behind schedule, I certainly don't have time or energy for an RfC. My thought was that changes that JBL made should have consensus. If that is not so, we can add this article to the long list of article in Wiki in which the one with the most time on his/her hands "wins". Best, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayanta_Sen" title="User:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">JS</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayanta_Sen" title="User talk:Jayanta Sen" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 17:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Jayanta_Sen-2017-05-16T17:43:00.000Z-Peter_Gulutzan-2017-05-16T15:56:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl><h2 class="ext-discussiontools-init-section" style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="id" data-mw-comment="{" type="type" heading="heading" level="level" h-lead_section-2019-05-27t21:54="h-Lead_section-2019-05-27T21:54" replies="replies" c-ahrtoodeetoo-2019-05-27t21:54="c-Ahrtoodeetoo-2019-05-27T21:54" c-yerpo-2019-05-30t19:30="c-Yerpo-2019-05-30T19:30" headinglevel="headingLevel" placeholderheading="placeholderHeading" false="false" xmlns:c-ahrtoodeetoo-2019-05-27t21="c-ahrtoodeetoo-2019-05-27t21" xmlns:c-yerpo-2019-05-30t19="c-yerpo-2019-05-30t19" xmlns:h-lead_section-2019-05-27t21="h-lead_section-2019-05-27t21"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="h-Lead_section-2019-05-27T21:54:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Lead section<span data-mw-comment-end="h-Lead_section-2019-05-27T21:54:00.000Z"><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Happer&action=edit§ion=10" title="Edit section: Lead section" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none; white-space: nowrap;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0.25em;">]</span></span></span></span></span></font></h2><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Ahrtoodeetoo-2019-05-27T21:54:00.000Z-Lead_section" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Based on the article it seems Happer’s views on climate change and his role in the Trump administration have received considerable attention, yet neither is mentioned in the lead section. Would anyone mind if I added something? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ahrtoodeetoo" class="mw-redirect" title="User:Ahrtoodeetoo" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">R2</a> <small style="">(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahrtoodeetoo" title="User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">bleep</a>)</small> 21:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Ahrtoodeetoo-2019-05-27T21:54:00.000Z-Lead_section" /></span></font></p><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Hob_Gadling-2019-05-28T07:56:00.000Z-Ahrtoodeetoo-2019-05-27T21:54:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">His comparison of climate scientists with Nazis has been deleted as "trivial". I think it delineates his mindset pretty well. When you lack reasons for your position, smear the person. --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hob_Gadling" title="User:Hob Gadling" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hob Gadling</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hob_Gadling" title="User talk:Hob Gadling" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 07:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Hob_Gadling-2019-05-28T07:56:00.000Z-Ahrtoodeetoo-2019-05-27T21:54:00.000Z" /></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Snooganssnoogans-2019-05-28T09:55:00.000Z-Hob_Gadling-2019-05-28T07:56:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">It seems slanderous to take an unflattering quoted sentence out of context and place it in the lead. Think of the lead as a standalone [future] obituary. <small class="autosigned" style="">— Preceding <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures" title="Wikipedia:Signatures" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">unsigned</a> comment added by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:2603:4011:1800:0:0:0:0:1A&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User:2603:4011:1800:0:0:0:0:1A (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2603:4011:1800::1a</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2603:4011:1800:0:0:0:0:1A&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:2603:4011:1800:0:0:0:0:1A (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a> • <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:4011:1800::1a" title="Special:Contributions/2603:4011:1800::1a" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">contribs</a>)</small></span></font></dd><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This absolutely belongs in the lede. It's such a stunningly ignorant and incendiary statement, covered by multiple RS, on the topic of climate science that it is absolutely lede-worthy for someone who's gonna lead a government panel reviewing climate science. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snooganssnoogans" title="User:Snooganssnoogans" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Snooganssnoogans</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snooganssnoogans" title="User talk:Snooganssnoogans" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 09:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Snooganssnoogans-2019-05-28T09:55:00.000Z-Hob_Gadling-2019-05-28T07:56:00.000Z" /></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Starship.paint-2019-05-29T08:35:00.000Z-Snooganssnoogans-2019-05-28T09:55:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Yes, his anti-climate, pro-CO2 views are important enough for the lede. <b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Starship.paint" title="User:Starship.paint" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">starship</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Starship.paint" title="Special:Contributions/Starship.paint" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">.paint</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starship.paint" title="User talk:Starship.paint" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>)</b> 08:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Starship.paint-2019-05-29T08:35:00.000Z-Snooganssnoogans-2019-05-28T09:55:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Yerpo-2019-05-29T17:03:00.000Z-Ahrtoodeetoo-2019-05-27T21:54:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Mentioning his denial in general, definitely. One particular statement (which is repeated in the appropriate section), too trivial. Can we agree on that? — <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yerpo" title="User:Yerpo" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yerpo</a> <sup style="line-height: 1;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yerpo" title="User talk:Yerpo" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Eh?</a></sup> 17:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Yerpo-2019-05-29T17:03:00.000Z-Ahrtoodeetoo-2019-05-27T21:54:00.000Z" /></span></font></dd><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Starship.paint-2019-05-30T00:15:00.000Z-Ahrtoodeetoo-2019-05-27T21:54:00.000Z" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">+1 <small class="autosigned" style="">— Preceding <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures" title="Wikipedia:Signatures" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">unsigned</a> comment added by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:2603:4011:1800:0:0:0:0:1A&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User:2603:4011:1800:0:0:0:0:1A (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2603:4011:1800::1a</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2603:4011:1800:0:0:0:0:1A&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:2603:4011:1800:0:0:0:0:1A (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a> • <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:4011:1800::1a" title="Special:Contributions/2603:4011:1800::1a" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">contribs</a>)</small></span></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hmm, while his statement seems outrageous, perhaps it shouldn't be in the lede. I wouldn't say it's trivial, but maybe, it's more important to state that he thinks more CO2 is a good thing. <b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Starship.paint" title="User:Starship.paint" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">starship</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Starship.paint" title="Special:Contributions/Starship.paint" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">.paint</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starship.paint" title="User talk:Starship.paint" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>)</b> 00:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Starship.paint-2019-05-30T00:15:00.000Z-Ahrtoodeetoo-2019-05-27T21:54:00.000Z" /></font></dd></dl></dd></dl><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Yerpo-2019-05-30T19:30:00.000Z-Lead_section" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">It is factually inaccurate to say Happer rejects the "scientific consensus", he does reject the existential threat climate change may pose. <small class="autosigned" style="">— Preceding <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures" title="Wikipedia:Signatures" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">unsigned</a> comment added by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:2603:4011:1800:0:0:0:0:1A&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User:2603:4011:1800:0:0:0:0:1A (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2603:4011:1800::1a</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2603:4011:1800:0:0:0:0:1A&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:2603:4011:1800:0:0:0:0:1A (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a> • <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:4011:1800::1a" title="Special:Contributions/2603:4011:1800::1a" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">contribs</a>)</small></span></font></p><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He also rejects the scientific consensus that humans are an important cause. — <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yerpo" title="User:Yerpo" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yerpo</a> <sup style="line-height: 1;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yerpo" title="User talk:Yerpo" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Eh?</a></sup> 19:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Yerpo-2019-05-30T19:30:00.000Z-Lead_section" /></font></dd></dl><h2 class="ext-discussiontools-init-section" style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="RfC:Comparing_demonization_of_CO2_with.22Jews_under_Hitler.22"><span class="mw-headline" id="id" jews_under_hitler="Jews_under_Hitler" data-mw-comment="{" type="type" heading="heading" level="level" h-rfc:comparing_demonization_of_co2_with="h-RfC:Comparing_demonization_of_CO2_with" t12:52="T12:52" replies="replies" c-steven_crossin-2019-07-24t17:04="c-Steven_Crossin-2019-07-24T17:04" c-snooganssnoogans-2019-06-03t12:52="c-Snooganssnoogans-2019-06-03T12:52" h-survey-rfc:comparing_demonization_of_co2_with="h-Survey-RfC:Comparing_demonization_of_CO2_with" t12:59="T12:59" headinglevel="headingLevel" placeholderheading="placeholderHeading" false="false" xmlns:c-snooganssnoogans-2019-06-03t12="c-snooganssnoogans-2019-06-03t12" xmlns:c-steven_crossin-2019-07-24t17="c-steven_crossin-2019-07-24t17" xmlns:h-rfc="h-rfc" xmlns:h-survey-rfc="h-survey-rfc" xmlns:t12="t12"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="h-RfC:Comparing_demonization_of_CO2_with" jews_under_hitler="Jews_under_Hitler" t12:52="T12:52" style="position: relative; top: -1em;" xmlns:t12="t12">RfC: Comparing demonization of CO2 with "Jews under Hitler"<span data-mw-comment-end="h-RfC:Comparing_demonization_of_CO2_with" jews_under_hitler="Jews_under_Hitler" t12:52="T12:52" xmlns:t12="t12"><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Happer&action=edit§ion=11" title="Edit section: RfC: Comparing demonization of CO2 with " jews="Jews" under="under" hitler="Hitler" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none; white-space: nowrap;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0.25em;">]</span></span></span></span></span></span></font></h2><div class="boilerplate vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: rgb(243, 249, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px 10px; border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170);"><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><i><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Steven_Crossin-2019-07-24T17:04:00.000Z-RfC:Comparing_demonization_of_CO2_with" jews_under_hitler="Jews_under_Hitler" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">The following discussion is an archived record of a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment" title="Wikipedia:Requests for comment" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">request for comment</a>. <b>Please do not modify it.</b> No further edits should be made to this discussion.</span></i> <i>A summary of the conclusions reached follows.</i></font><dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.4em 1.6em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Based on my review of the disucssion here, I find a consensus here that the proposed sentence <i>"demonization of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere" title="Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">carbon dioxide</a> is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler"</i> <b>should not be present in the lede section of the article</b>. Those opposing have mentioned our undue weight policy and guidelines on lead sections, in particular noting that this content is already present elsewhere in the article. Those in support have argued that the statement was so significant, and covered widely enough in sources that it belongs in the lede, but I did not find this argument compelling enough to overcome the opposition and close the RFC in that fashion. <small style="">(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure" title="Wikipedia:Non-admin closure" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">non-admin closure</a>)</small> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steven_Crossin" title="User:Steven Crossin" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Steven</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steven_Crossin" title="User talk:Steven Crossin" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Crossin</a> <sup style="line-height: 1;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRN/V" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:DRN/V" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Help resolve disputes!</a></sup> 17:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Steven_Crossin-2019-07-24T17:04:00.000Z-RfC:Comparing_demonization_of_CO2_with" jews_under_hitler="Jews_under_Hitler" /></font></dd></dl></dd></dl><hr style="box-sizing: content-box; height: 1px; overflow: visible; background-color: rgb(162, 169, 177); border: 0px; margin: 0.2em 0px;" /><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
<span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Snooganssnoogans-2019-06-03T12:52:00.000Z-RfC:Comparing_demonization_of_CO2_with" jews_under_hitler="Jews_under_Hitler" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Should the lede cover Happer's 2014 remarks that the "demonization of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere" title="Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">carbon dioxide</a> is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler"? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snooganssnoogans" title="User:Snooganssnoogans" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Snooganssnoogans</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snooganssnoogans" title="User talk:Snooganssnoogans" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 12:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Snooganssnoogans-2019-06-03T12:52:00.000Z-RfC:Comparing_demonization_of_CO2_with" jews_under_hitler="Jews_under_Hitler" /></span></font></p><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-headline" id="id" data-mw-comment="{" type="type" heading="heading" level="level" h-survey-rfc:comparing_demonization_of_co2_with="h-Survey-RfC:Comparing_demonization_of_CO2_with" jews_under_hitler="Jews_under_Hitler" t12:59="T12:59" replies="replies" c-snooganssnoogans-2019-06-03t12:59="c-Snooganssnoogans-2019-06-03T12:59" c-yerpo-2019-06-03t13:03="c-Yerpo-2019-06-03T13:03" c-deacon_vorbis-2019-06-03t13:14="c-Deacon_Vorbis-2019-06-03T13:14" c-jonathan_a_jones-2019-06-03t13:26="c-Jonathan_A_Jones-2019-06-03T13:26" c-paleoneonate-2019-06-03t13:43="c-PaleoNeonate-2019-06-03T13:43" c-roxy_the_dog-2019-06-03t16:39="c-Roxy_the_dog-2019-06-03T16:39" c-hob_gadling-2019-06-03t16:50="c-Hob_Gadling-2019-06-03T16:50" c-joel_b.lewis-2019-06-03t21:01="c-Joel_B.Lewis-2019-06-03T21:01" c-praisevivec-2019-06-04t11:27="c-PraiseVivec-2019-06-04T11:27" c-e.m.gregory-2019-06-04t15:00="c-E.M.Gregory-2019-06-04T15:00" c-2603:4011="c-2603:4011" c-ahrtoodeetoo-2019-06-05t04:48="c-Ahrtoodeetoo-2019-06-05T04:48" c-red_rock_canyon-2019-06-05t13:18="c-Red_Rock_Canyon-2019-06-05T13:18" c-bo99-2019-06-05t13:37="c-Bo99-2019-06-05T13:37" c-richardweiss-2019-06-05t13:59="c-RichardWeiss-2019-06-05T13:59" c-cynistrategus-2019-06-07t05:29="c-Cynistrategus-2019-06-07T05:29" c-rorix_the_white-2019-06-15t16:20="c-Rorix_the_White-2019-06-15T16:20" c-william2001-2019-06-22t19:35="c-William2001-2019-06-22T19:35" c-icewhiz-2019-07-01t16:20="c-Icewhiz-2019-07-01T16:20" headinglevel="headingLevel" placeholderheading="placeholderHeading" false="false" xmlns:c-2603="c-2603" xmlns:c-ahrtoodeetoo-2019-06-05t04="c-ahrtoodeetoo-2019-06-05t04" xmlns:c-bo99-2019-06-05t13="c-bo99-2019-06-05t13" xmlns:c-cynistrategus-2019-06-07t05="c-cynistrategus-2019-06-07t05" xmlns:c-deacon_vorbis-2019-06-03t13="c-deacon_vorbis-2019-06-03t13" xmlns:c-e.m.gregory-2019-06-04t15="c-e.m.gregory-2019-06-04t15" xmlns:c-hob_gadling-2019-06-03t16="c-hob_gadling-2019-06-03t16" xmlns:c-icewhiz-2019-07-01t16="c-icewhiz-2019-07-01t16" xmlns:c-joel_b.lewis-2019-06-03t21="c-joel_b.lewis-2019-06-03t21" xmlns:c-jonathan_a_jones-2019-06-03t13="c-jonathan_a_jones-2019-06-03t13" xmlns:c-paleoneonate-2019-06-03t13="c-paleoneonate-2019-06-03t13" xmlns:c-praisevivec-2019-06-04t11="c-praisevivec-2019-06-04t11" xmlns:c-red_rock_canyon-2019-06-05t13="c-red_rock_canyon-2019-06-05t13" xmlns:c-richardweiss-2019-06-05t13="c-richardweiss-2019-06-05t13" xmlns:c-rorix_the_white-2019-06-15t16="c-rorix_the_white-2019-06-15t16" xmlns:c-roxy_the_dog-2019-06-03t16="c-roxy_the_dog-2019-06-03t16" xmlns:c-snooganssnoogans-2019-06-03t12="c-snooganssnoogans-2019-06-03t12" xmlns:c-william2001-2019-06-22t19="c-william2001-2019-06-22t19" xmlns:c-yerpo-2019-06-03t13="c-yerpo-2019-06-03t13" xmlns:h-survey-rfc="h-survey-rfc" xmlns:t12="t12"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="h-Survey-RfC:Comparing_demonization_of_CO2_with" jews_under_hitler="Jews_under_Hitler" t12:59="T12:59" style="position: relative; top: -1em;" xmlns:t12="t12">Survey<span data-mw-comment-end="h-Survey-RfC:Comparing_demonization_of_CO2_with" jews_under_hitler="Jews_under_Hitler" t12:59="T12:59" xmlns:t12="t12"><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Happer&action=edit§ion=12" title="Edit section: Survey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none; white-space: nowrap;">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0.25em;">]</span></span></span></span></span></font></h3><ul style="list-style-image: url(" w="w" skins="skins" vector="Vector" resources="resources" common="common" images="images" bullet-icon.svg="bullet-icon.svg" d4515="d4515" margin="margin" em="em" px="px" padding="padding"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Snooganssnoogans-2019-06-03T12:59:00.000Z-Survey" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Support.</span></b> Happer is a prominent climate change denier who currently has a lot of influence within the Trump administration as a purported expert on climate science (despite having zero training in climate science). He is set to chair a government panel to review the evidence on climate change with the intent to challenge the consensus language in past government panels on climate change (per the NY Times[<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">[4]</a>]). The quote in question is so ignorant and incendiary that all RS that cover this man and his influence in the White House make mention of it, e.g. The New York Times<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">[5]</a>, Associated Press<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="https://www.apnews.com/c2feea17f3ce4e34ba4fba684da11cec" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">[6]</a>, Reuters<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-climate/white-house-drafts-guidelines-for-panel-questioning-climate-threat-to-security-idUSKCN1QI385" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">[7]</a><a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climatechange/white-house-readies-panel-to-question-security-risks-of-climate-idUSKCN1Q92AR" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">[8]</a>, CNBC<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/20/reuters-america-white-house-readies-panel-to-question-security-risks-of-climate.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">[9]</a>, Bloomberg<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-22/meet-the-co2-praising-physicist-behind-latest-trump-climate-push" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">[10]</a>, CNN<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/20/politics/white-house-climate-panel-william-happer/index.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" resources="resources" src="src" mediawiki.skinning="mediawiki.skinning" images="images" external-ltr.svg="external-ltr.svg" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">[11]</a>... <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snooganssnoogans" title="User:Snooganssnoogans" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Snooganssnoogans</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snooganssnoogans" title="User talk:Snooganssnoogans" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">talk</a>) 12:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Snooganssnoogans-2019-06-03T12:59:00.000Z-Survey" /></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Yerpo-2019-06-03T13:03:00.000Z-Survey" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">Oppose.</span></b> It's mentioned in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Views" title="William Happer" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Views</a> section where it belongs, but doesn't add any value to the lede which is meant to summarize the content. And his stance on climate change is summarized very clearly there. — <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yerpo" title="User:Yerpo" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yerpo</a> <sup style="line-height: 1;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yerpo" title="User talk:Yerpo" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Eh?</a></sup> 13:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)<span data-mw-comment-end="c-Yerpo-2019-06-03T13:03:00.000Z-Survey" /></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="c-Deacon_Vorbis-2019-06-03T13:14:00.000Z-Survey" style="position: relative; top: -1em;">No</span></b> per <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DUE" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:DUE" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">WP:DUE</a>. Specifically, <q class="inline-quote-talk" style="quotes: none;">"Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, <strong>prominence of placement</strong>, juxtaposition of statements and imagery"</q> (emphasis added). –<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deacon_Vorbis" title="User:Deacon Vorbis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Deacon Vorbis</a> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis" title="User talk:Deacon Vorbis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">carbon</a> • <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Deacon_Vorbis" title="Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">videos</a>) 13:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)...</font></li></ul></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">bs bk; “Marc Morano’s book Green Fraud provides a factual scientific and political account of the Green New Deal and other misanthropic and self-serving schemes of the global elite and their opportunistic or deluded acolytes.” —Will Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics emeritus, Princeton University</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Morano is truly the Pete Rose and Hank Aaron of climate contrarians.” —Steven Hayward of Power Line</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.climatedocket.com/2019/06/26/exxon-climate-denial-american-council-science-health/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">exxonMobil is funding a little-known nonprofit that calls itself a “pro-science advocacy organization,” but whose scientific advisory board includes several renowned climate deniers and has worked for decades to sow doubt about the health impacts of climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Records show the ExxonMobil Foundation provided grants of at least $60,000 in both 2017 and 2018 to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a group that says its mission is to “publicly support evidence-based science and medicine.” </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Members of the ACSH scientific advisory board, however, include a who’s who of climate deniers, including Patrick J. Michaels, who has worked for more than 30 years on behalf of the fossil fuel industry; S. Fred Singer, who last year wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal falsely claiming that sea level rise is not caused by climate change; and William Happer, a current member of President Trump’s National Security Council who as recently as 2016 argued that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Documents recently revealed in an investigation by The Guardian guk show ExxonMobil’s current funding of the ACSH began prior to 1999, when Exxon and Mobil merged to become Exxon Mobil Corporation, one of the largest oil companies in the world....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">from naomi heartland art'l</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Health & Science</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">White House prepares to scrutinize intelligence agencies’ finding that climate change threatens national security</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security is being spearheaded by William Happer, a National Security Council senior director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security is being spearheaded by William Happer, a National Security Council senior director. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Juliet Eilperin and </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Missy Ryan </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Feb. 20, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The White House is working to assemble a panel to assess whether climate change poses a national security threat, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post, a conclusion that federal intelligence agencies have affirmed several times since President Trump took office.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security, which would be established by executive order, is being spearheaded by William Happer, a National Security Council senior director. Happer, an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University, has said that carbon emissions linked to climate change should be viewed as an asset rather than a pollutant....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/06/08/white-house-blocked-intelligence-aides-written-testimony-saying-human-caused-climate-change-could-be-possibly-catastrophic/?tid=lk_inline_manual_34&itid=lk_inline_manual_34</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Climate and Environment</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">White House blocked intelligence agency’s written testimony calling climate change ‘possibly catastrophic’</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Officials sought to excise the State Department’s comments on climate science because they did not mesh with the administration’s stance</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to the National Park Service, Glacier National Park’s ice sheets are a fraction of the size they were 100 years ago. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Juliet Eilperin, </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Josh Dawsey and </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Brady Dennis </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">June 8, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">White House officials barred a State Department intelligence agency from submitting written testimony this week to the House Intelligence Committee warning that human-caused climate change is “possibly catastrophic.” The move came after State officials refused to excise the document’s references to federal scientific findings on climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The effort to edit, and ultimately suppress, the prepared testimony by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research comes as the Trump administration is debating how best to challenge the fact that burning fossil fuels is warming the planet and could pose serious risks unless the world makes deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. Senior military and intelligence officials have continued to warn that climate change could undermine the United States’ national security — a position President Trump rejects....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">e&e news</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Science critics angered by scrapped climate panel</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Published: Friday, July 12, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Some of President Trump's most vociferous cheerleaders on environmental policy are angry that he has backed away from a plan to conduct an "adversarial" review of climate science.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060713373</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The proposed White House panel that would conduct an "adversarial" review of climate science is dead for now, as President Trump grapples with negative perceptions of his environmental record at the outset of his reelection campaign.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The monthslong push from within the National Security Council to review established science on climate change divided White House advisers and generated sharp opposition from researchers across the country. The effort, led by a physicist overseeing technology issues at the NSC, William Happer, stalled indefinitely amid internal disagreements within the White House, according to two sources.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"It's been totally stymied by the forces of darkness within the administration, but also by the looming election campaign," said Myron Ebell, a senior fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute who led the EPA transition team under Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer has consulted conservative groups that attack climate science in an attempt to recruit members for the proposed panel. He's spoken with policy analysts at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute and CO2 Coalition, a group Happer founded and that claims that the world would be better off with higher levels of carbon dioxide emissions. The theories promoted by those groups are rejected by NASA, NOAA and the world's top science academies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer initially wanted Trump to issue an executive order to create the "Presidential Committee on Climate Security." He wanted the panel to review assertions within the National Climate Assessment related to risks from climate change on national security. Happer briefed Trump on climate science at least twice (Climatewire, June 24).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The idea to create the panel has caused strife within the White House. Among its critics are deputy chief of staff Chris Liddell; Kevin Hassett, the outgoing chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council; and Kelvin Droegemeier, the president's science adviser. Those supporting the plan include Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and Brooke Rollins, assistant to Trump in the Office of American Innovation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">An official at NSC disputed the characterization that the panel was dead, even while confirming that it had been indefinitely delayed. The plan has suffered several downgrades over the months. It was initially proposed as a rapid response team of climate science critics who would challenge government publications on human-caused warming. Recent discussions have centered on the idea of forcing government climate scientists to participate in a debate with critics of their work who deny that humans are causing widespread changes on Earth (Climatewire, June 6). Most recently, the plan was diminished to creating dueling white papers that would elevate climate denialism to the level of consensus science.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Those in talks to participate as critics of mainstream science include John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Judith Curry, former head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. A potential leader of the exercise was Paul Robinson, a former Department of Energy official who oversaw talks about nuclear weapons tests with the Soviet Union, but who is not trained in climate science.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump supporters who want the administration to be more aggressive in its rejection of climate science were frustrated that the climate review panel had been sidelined. Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute sees it as a sign that the Trump campaign is sensitive to Democratic attacks on climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The reelect campaign has been completely taken over by the usual cast of Republican establishment consultants who are primarily concerned with making very large amounts of money on the campaign," Ebell said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/trump-official-resigns-in-protest-after-the-white-house-blocked-him-from-revealing-evidence-of-climate-change-report/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump administration official resigns ‘in protest’ after the White House blocked his testimony on evidence of climate change: report</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> House Intelligence Committee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">written by Cody Fenwick July 10, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rod Schoonover has resigned as a State Department intelligence official “in protest” over the White House’s decision to block him from presenting evidence and data on the impacts of climate change in Congressional testimony, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The report cited anonymous State Department officials as sources on the development. Previous reporting had revealed that the White House had blocked the written testimony.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Washington Post reported:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to several senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about internal deliberations, Trump administration officials sought to cut several pages of the document on the grounds that its description of climate science did not mesh with the administration’s official stance. Critics of the testimony included William Happer, a National Security Council senior director who has touted the benefits of carbon dioxide and sought to establish a federal task force to challenge the scientific consensus that human activity is driving the planet’s rising temperatures.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Schoonover still testified before the House Intelligence Committee on June 5, 2019, on the topic of the national security implications of climate change, but he wasn’t allowed to provide evidence and data supporting his conclusions in his written testimony, the Journal reported. His written remarks were reportedly cut in half to exclude this information.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“As an intelligence officer, my job is to provide clear, objective, independent analysis top policymakers to advance U.S. national security,” Schoonover said at the hearing. “The Earth’s climate is unequivocally undergoing a long-term warming trend, as established by decades of scientific measurements from multiple independent lines of evidence.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He added: “We see few plausible future scenarios where significant harm does not arise from the compounded effects of climate change. People’s choices in the present and future, however, dictate the magnitude of many factors.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Journal reported that Schoonover’s last day at the department will be Friday after having worked there for almost a decade.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The event highlights an ongoing struggle in the Trump administration, which arises from the fundamental failures of the Republican Party more broadly. The federal government has developed layers of experts and career officials who work to provide the analysis and information to elected and appointed officials in order for them to best carry out their duties to the public. But these career officials, while they certainly have political opinions, largely do their work with dedication toward pursuing the objective truth to aid decisionmakers. When a party like the GOP becomes so disconnected from reality that it denies the scientific consensus on climate change, it will likely clash with the government’s experts.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Alternatively, as occurred under President George W. Bush, the intelligence community may be co-opted into building the case for even a deeply misguided policy aim such as the Iraq War. Notably, the Journal pointed out that Schoonover’s agency, the Intelligence and Research Bureau, “was nearly alone among spy agencies in questioning whether Iraq had active weapons of mass destruction programs” when Bush pushed for war in 2003.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">619 new</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">bad: the White House chooses climate denial over national security</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reporting on federal climate denial and delay during the (George W.) Bush administration, a journalist muttered to herself from time to time,“You can’t argue with physics.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fast forward a dozen years and hooooo-mama: Was I naive or what?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Because last week, as first reported by the Washington Post, a physicist working for the White House tried to cut all the factual climate science out of a State Department intelligence expert’s formal testimony to Congress on how climate change could could be “possibly catastrophic” to U.S. national security.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When the State Dept. refused to change its staffer’s testimony, the White House still let him talk to Congress, but barred him from submitting the written statement for entry into the Congressional Record for the hearing.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I have never heard of basic facts being deleted from or blocked from testimony,” conservative policy scholar Norman Ornstein told The New York Times.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Almost every page of the written testimony’s scientific section, according to The Times, was marked up with negative comments by physicist William Happer, a National Security Council appointee.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer for years led the Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank that has received substantial funding from a charitable giving arm of Exxon.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a 2014 media appearance, Happer denied that he was a climate change denier, but also told CNBC’s Squawk Box that “the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler. Carbon dioxide is actually a benefit to the world and so were the Jews.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to a recent story on Climatewire, Happer in late May met with President Trump to brief him on a White House initiative to “highlight uncertainties in climate research and downplay the threat of global warming to national security.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">omfg note system tip pt</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/06/10/rod-schoonover-trump-attempted-suppress-state-dept-analyst-testimony-climate-crisis</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Trump administration issued one of its most blatant attacks on climate science this past week when it tried to stop a State Department employee from testifying on the climate crisis, reports showed on Saturday.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As the Washington Post reported, intelligence analyst Rod Schoonover's testimony was submitted to the White House for approval ahead of his planned appearance before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. His remarks focused on the national security risks posed by the climate crisis.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Trump administration refused to approve the testimony for entry into the congressional record, noting that the data Schoonover planned to present—drawing from top government scientists' research and peer-reviewed scientific reports—did not align with the executive branch's views.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[pix]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">National Security Council advisers wrote a number of comments on Schoonover's draft, saying the testimony was “not objective.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The testimony “includes lots of climate alarm propaganda that is not science at all,” wrote William Happer, a senior member of the National Security Council who has sought to create a federal task force to challenge the consensus reached by 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate scientists who say humans are contributing to the climate crisis.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I am embarrassed to have this go out on behalf of the executive branch of the federal government,” Happer added, noting a particular objection to Schoonover's use of the term “tipping point” in reference to possible devastating, irreversible effects of the climate crisis.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“'Tipping points' is a propaganda slogan for the scientifically illiterate,” Happer wrote.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Related: Get the background from DeSmog on climate science denier William Happer, and read: Physicist William Happer, the 'Unmoored' Climate Science Denier Heading a White House Climate Probe</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Schoonover was ultimately permitted to testify before the committee, but his testimony was not submitted into the record because, the Office of Legislative Affairs said, it did not “jibe” with the Trump administration's views on the climate.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">President Donald Trump and many of his appointees deny that human activity like the extraction of fossil fuels are contributing to the warming of the globe, which scientists warn is already causing extreme weather events like hurricanes and wildfires, rising sea levels, and melting glaciers. As Schoonover mentioned in his testimony, the last five years have been the warmest on record according to NASA.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Although Schoonover was able to testify, climate action advocates decried the White House's attempt to stifle the information he eventually shared with the committee.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Any attempt to suppress information on the security risks of climate change threatens to leave the American public vulnerable and unsafe,” Francesco Femia, chief executive of the Council on Strategic Risks and co-founder of the Center for Climate and Security, told the Post.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> =</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">omfg</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">some lnx below</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 27, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">WASHINGTON — President Trump has rolled back environmental regulations, pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, brushed aside dire predictions about the effects of climate change, and turned the term “global warming” into a punch line rather than a prognosis.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now, after two years spent unraveling the policies of his predecessors, Mr. Trump and his political appointees are launching a new assault.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the next few months, the White House will complete the rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, initiated during the Obama administration. It will expand its efforts to impose Mr. Trump’s hard-line views on other nations, building on his retreat from the Paris accord and his recent refusal to sign a communiqué to protect the rapidly melting Arctic region unless it was stripped of any references to climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And, in what could be Mr. Trump’s most consequential action yet, his administration will seek to undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter.]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Trump is less an ideologue than an armchair naysayer about climate change, according to people who know him. He came into office viewing agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency as bastions of what he calls the “deep state,” and his contempt for their past work on the issue is an animating factor in trying to force them to abandon key aspects of the methodology they use to try to understand the causes and consequences of a dangerously warming planet.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As a result, parts of the federal government will no longer fulfill what scientists say is one of the most urgent jobs of climate science studies: reporting on the future effects of a rapidly warming planet and presenting a picture of what the earth could look like by the end of the century if the global economy continues to emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The attack on science is underway throughout the government. In the most recent example, the White House-appointed director of the United States Geological Survey,James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Image</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">President Trump has pushed to resurrect the idea of holding public debates on the validity of climate science.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scientists say that would give a misleading picture because the biggest effects of current emissions will be felt after 2040. Models show that the planet will most likely warm at about the same rate through about 2050. From that point until the end of the century, however, the rate of warming differs significantly with an increase or decrease in carbon emissions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The administration’s prime target has been the National Climate Assessment, produced by an interagency task force roughly every four years since 2000. Government scientists used computer-generated models in their most recent report to project that if fossil fuel emissions continue unchecked, the earth’s atmosphere could warm by as much as eight degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That would lead to drastically higher sea levels, more devastating storms and droughts, crop failures, food losses and severe health consequences.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Work on the next report, which is expected to be released in 2021 or 2022, has already begun. But from now on, officials said, such worst-case scenario projections will not automatically be included in the National Climate Assessment or in some other scientific reports produced by the government.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“What we have here is a pretty blatant attempt to politicize the science — to push the science in a direction that’s consistent with their politics,” said Philip B. Duffy, the president of the Woods Hole Research Center, who served on a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed the government’s most recent National Climate Assessment. “It reminds me of the Soviet Union.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In an email, James Hewitt, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency, defended the proposed changes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The previous use of inaccurate modeling that focuses on worst-case emissions scenarios, that does not reflect real-world conditions, needs to be thoroughly re-examined and tested if such information is going to serve as the scientific foundation of nationwide decision-making now and in the future,” Mr. Hewitt said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, the goal of political appointees in the Trump administration is not just to change the climate assessment’s methodology, which has broad scientific consensus, but also to question its conclusions by creating a new climate review panel. That effort is led by a 79-year-old physicist who had a respected career at Princeton but has become better known in recent years for attacking the science of man-made climate change and for defending the virtues of carbon dioxide — sometimes to an awkward degree.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Image</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Beaufort Sea in the Arctic, a region that is warming rapidly. The United States recently declined to sign a communiqué on protecting the Arctic unless it omitted references to climate change.CreditAndrew Testa for The New York Times]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler,” the physicist, William Happer, who serves on the National Security Council as the president’s deputy assistant for emerging technologies, said in 2014 in an interview with CNBC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Happer’s proposed panel is backed by John R. Bolton, the president’s national security adviser, who brought Mr. Happer into the N.S.C. after an earlier effort to recruit him during the transition.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Happer and Mr. Bolton are both beneficiaries of Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the far-right billionaire and his daughter who have funded efforts to debunk climate science. The Mercers gave money to a super PAC affiliated with Mr. Bolton before he entered government and to an advocacy group headed by Mr. Happer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Climate scientists are dismissive of Mr. Happer; his former colleagues at Princeton are chagrined. And several White House officials — including Larry Kudlow, the president’s chief economic adviser — have urged Mr. Trump not to adopt Mr. Happer’s proposal, on the grounds that it would be perceived as a White House attack on science.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House strategist who views Mr. Happer as “the climate hustler’s worst nightmare — a world-class physicist from the nation’s leading institution of advanced learning, who does not suffer fools gladly,” is apprehensive about what Mr. Happer is trying to do.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The very idea will start a holy war on cable before 2020,” he said. “Better to win now and introduce the study in the second inaugural address.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But at a White House meeting on May 1, at which the skeptical advisers made their case, Mr. Trump appeared unpersuaded, people familiar with the meeting said. Mr. Happer, they said, is optimistic that the panel will go forward.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Image</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer, who serves on the National Security Council, is pushing to create a climate review panel that would question scientific consensus.CreditPool photo by Albin Lohr-Jones]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The concept is not new. Mr. Trump has pushed to resurrect the idea of a series of military-style exercises, known as “red team, blue team” debates, on the validity of climate science first promoted by Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator who was forced to resign last year amid multiple scandals.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At the time, the idea was shot down by John F. Kelly, then the White House chief of staff. But since Mr. Kelly’s departure, Mr. Trump has talked about using Mr. Happer’s proposed panel as a forum for it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For Mr. Trump, climate change is often the subject of mockery. “Wouldn’t be bad to have a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming right now!” he posted on Twitter in January when a snowstorm was freezing much of the country.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">His views are influenced mainly by friends and donors like Carl Icahn, the New York investor who owns oil refineries, and the oil-and-gas billionaire Harold Hamm — both of whom pushed Mr. Trump to deregulate the energy industry.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ImageThe Daily Poster</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Listen to ‘The Daily’: The White House Plan to Change Climate Science]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The thrust of Boutrous’ presentation wasn’t that climate science was wrong — he, too, took a turn running through graphs showing the precipitous rise in global temperatures and sea levels — but he also took care to show the rate of emissions in China and India, lingering particularly on a graph that said that China’s emissions currently exceed the United States. He said that this was largely due to the burning of coal, which is being reduced in the US. In fact, Boutrous even credited hydraulic fracking with reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the US.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Boutrous seemed to say that fossil fuel companies aren’t responsible for how people use their products. “IPCC doesn’t say that the extraction or production of fossil fuels leads to emissions,” Boutrous said. “It’s energy use, the economic activity, that drives the demand for fuel that leads to emissions.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“WE’RE JUST MAKING THE CIGARETTES, PEOPLE ARE CHOOSING TO SMOKE.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It’s an argument we’ve heard before from tobacco companies, says Peter Frumhoff, chief climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Tobacco companies for years said that ‘We’re just making the cigarettes; people are choosing to smoke,’” Frumhoff says.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And for years, courts sided with the companies, he says — until public opinion began to change. “It was the consequence of their efforts to disinform that led juries and judges — who are members of the public — to say, ‘Wait a minute,’” Frumhoff says. The lawsuit itself says bluntly that the defendants “borrowed the Big Tobacco playbook in order to promote their products.” The complaint accuses the oil companies of “promoting massive use of fossil fuels by misleading the public about global warming by emphasizing the uncertainties of climate science.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In response, Boutrous’ presentation on the history of climate science focused on the controversy around the theory that climate change was caused by humans. Chevron may be willing to say now that climate change was caused by humans, but surely it wasn’t wrong to say otherwise then. For example, both Boutrous and Allen mentioned Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius who, at the turn of the 20th century, grew increasingly concerned that anthropogenic carbon emissions could increase global temperatures.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Boutrous took time to emphasize that, until about the 1960s, most scientists didn’t believe him. This isn’t strictly wrong — although Judge Alsup himself noted that in 1938, Guy Callendar linked climate change to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Even NASA’s Earth Observatory agrees that Arrhenius was largely disregarded until the second half of the century. “It’s trial and error. Scientists debating each other,” Boutrous said in court. “Questioning other scientists’ views is part of the scientific process.” (Boutrous did not call any scientific experts on behalf of the oil companies to speak before Judge Alsup Wednesday about how the scientific process is conducted or anything else.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“WHAT’</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Boutrous drew quotes from IPCC reports across the years, showing the increasingly strong language that was used to characterize its conclusions about climate change. In 1995, the IPCC said that “the balance of evidence suggests” human-caused climate change, the 2007 report goes with the phrase “very likely,” and by 2013, it becomes “extremely likely.” In other words, the oil companies are emphasizing that it’s taken time for scientists to reach a consensus on climate change. It’s a strategy that climate law expert Jessica Wentz at Columbia Law School was expecting. “Not directly attacking the science, but undermining it by emphasizing uncertainty,” she says.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The legalistic reading of the IPCC’s statements was frustrating to Allen, he said in an interview with The Verge after the tutorial concluded, because to scientists, the evidence and context are more important than the language. “The question of whether somebody writing a scientific paper uses the word ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ is kind of neither here nor there,” Allen says. “What’s actually said is not nearly as important as what the evidence is to support it.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Still, on the basic facts, the two sides agreed more than they disagreed — which kept arguments over whether or not climate change was real from derailing the hearing. This wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of the deniers: academics William Happer, Richard S. Lindzen, and Steven E. Koonin requested leave to file their own scientific presentation, which questions anthropogenic climate change. Happer and Lindzen are climate deniers; Koonin claims climate science is “not settled.” </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Another group of deniers, led by a British viscount with a degree in classical architecture, asked to file an amicus brief in the case. Neither group has yet received permission to contribute to the case, but the judge has asked both to disclose their funding sources and any links to either of the parties in the case. Notably, Koonin disclosed that he had “some money vested in a BP pension plan arising from his employment that ended nine years ago.” (He was chief scientist at BP for five years, according to his NYU bio.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">milloy desmog</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">February 4, 2018</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In January 2018, more than 200 scientists endorsed an open letter calling on the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) to remove climate change denier Rebekah Mercer from its board and to “end ties to anti-science propagandists and funders of climate science misinformation.” The New York Times reported that those among the AMNH letter calling for Mercer to step down were Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, and Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. [60]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Milloy was among a group of climate change deniers who responded with their own open letter, calling for the AMNH “not to cave in to this pressure.” The letter was signed by numerous individuals with ties to groups funded by the Mercer Family Foundation such as Will Happer of the CO2 Coalition; Richard Lindzen, a fellow at the Cato Institute; and Craig Idso, the chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. There are a number of signatories affiliated with the Heartland Institute, which has received over $5.78 million from the Mercer Family Foundation since 2008. [61]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">new</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/02/20/physicist-william-happer-unmoored-climate-science-denier-heading-white-house-climate-probe</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2016, retired Princeton physicist Professor Will Happer accepted an invitation from conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin to give a keynote at his conference to talk about the “positive effects of CO2.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Griffin thinks the science behind global warming is a scam. He also thinks there is “no such thing” as the HIV virus and that some plane contrails are part of a political plot to spray the population with poisons.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In an interview at the conference, Happer repeated his well-oiled mantra that “CO2 will be good for the Earth” and how it was “pretty clear we are not going to see dangerous climate change.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Under normal circumstances, you might think that Happer's association with a notorious anti-science conspiracy theorist might not look good on your résumè for a government science committee. However, these are not normal times.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">White House Probe</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But less than three years later, Happer is now on the United States National Security Council and, according to the Washington Post, is about to be invited to head a White House committee to assess the risks climate change poses to U.S. national security. A 2014 Pentagon report concluded that climate impacts including extreme temperatures and rising sea levels were already positing a risk to national security. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer, 79, has a long list of scientific papers in distinguished journals on optics and atomic physics, but has no training on climate science and has never published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal on climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Princeton colleague and climate scientist Professor Michael Oppenheimer has said of Happer that “with respect to climate science and scientists, he is not only unknowledgeable but appears to have become unmoored.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One of the few genuine climate scientists to have engaged with Happer in detail about his interpretation of climate science is Dr. David Karoly, currently leader of the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub at the Australian government's CSIRO science agency. In 2016, while at the University of Melbourne, Karoly engaged with Happer in a so-called “focused civil dialogue” on climate science.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Karoly told DeSmog he disengaged from the process after having reservations about the way it was being moderated. “But in the end, I realised that no matter what I said — all based on the peer reviewed science — he was not going to change his view, so I gave up,” said Karoly. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Commenting on Happer's suitability for the White House position, Karoly said: “Usually you would select a scientist with a strong peer-reviewed publication record in the area of interest. But he has not published a single peer-reviewed article on climate change in his career. That would suggest he does not have the credentials. I would argue that he does not have the appropriate experience, or the demonstrated capabilities, to be engaged in this sort of position.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jews and CO2</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a 2014 interview, Happer repeated a previous comparison he had made between carbon dioxide and the Holocaust. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The demonization of CO2 is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler. CO2 is actually a benefit to the world, and so were the Jews,” he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2015, Happer was caught in a sting operation after Greenpeace operatives posing as oil and gas industry representatives asked him to write a report on the benefits of CO2. Happer agreed, suggesting payments be made to the CO2 Coalition.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For years, Happer has been an active participant in the climate science denial community — serving as a trustee of the Exxon-funded and now-defunct George C. Marshall Institute and, later, co-founding the institute's next iteration as the CO2Coalition with former Exxon manager Roger Cohen.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reacting to Happer’s prospective role in leading an assessment of the national security risks of climate change, Francesco Femia, CEO of the Council on Strategic Risks and co-founder of the Center for Climate and Security, said: “We would welcome a rigorous and independent panel of credible climate and national security experts to study the security implications of climate change. However, this is not that.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The proposed committee is intended to provide an ‘adversarial’ review of already rigorously-reviewed reports from the intelligence, defense, science, and presumably other agencies, and will be chaired by a vocal climate skeptic that reports to the President. Therefore, it will be neither independent nor rigorous.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Femia told the Washington Post: “This is the equivalent of setting up a committee on nuclear weapons proliferation and having someone lead it who doesn’t think nuclear weapons exist.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">NEW</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15032019/air-pollution-trump-epa-science-advisers-health-risk-fossil-fuel-chemical-tobacco-industry</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For two years, the Trump administration has been planting seeds of change in the Environmental Protection Agency—installing allies of regulated industries onto its elite panels of science advisers. That effort now has borne fruit in dramatic fashion.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The EPA's new science advisers, sweeping aside decades of research on the grave health risks of fine particle air pollution, have launched a drive to force the agency to give greater weight to a handful of contrarian studies that dispute the harmful effects of soot.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Particulate matter is the pollution caused by combustion, a mixture of solid and liquid droplets that forms in the burning of fossil fuels or wood. The health risks of particulate matter have been an underpinning of the EPA's cost-benefit analysis of a number of air pollution regulations, including those meant to address climate change, like the Obama administration's Clean Air Act.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The science is well-established—the World Health Organization estimates that there are 4.2 million premature deaths a year due to fine particle pollution, making it one of the leading environmental health risks globally. But allies of the fossil fuel industry have vigorously disputed the validity of fine particle pollution studies since they first emerged in the 1990s.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Significantly, the health damages from particle and other pollution coming from the combustion of fossil fuels have also been used by the EPA to justify controls on carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. Controlling climate change has important co-benefits, the agency has reasoned. The Trump administration and its industry allies oppose this logic.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More Weight for 'Discordant' Claims? </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The latest scientific dispute centers around the EPA's draft assessment of the science on particulate matter (PM), a comprehensive review that the agency is required by law to conduct every few years to update the state of the science on several key pollutants. EPA released its draft review last fall.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It affirmed the agency's previous findings that the science points consistently and overwhelmingly to a "causal relationship" between PM pollution and premature deaths. The assessment concludes the greatest risk is due to particles less than 2.5 microns in width, and that PM2.5 is associated with a range of cardiovascular and respiratory effects.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For the first time, the EPA concluded that the evidence was strong enough to show a "likely" causal relationship between long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer, as well as nervous system effects. The EPA concluded, as it has in the past, that there is evidence of health risks even at extremely low levels of PM exposure.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now, in a harshly worded draft review, the Trump administration's science advisors are blasting those findings as based on "unverifiable opinions" and lacking in scientific support.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The advisers are members of a seven-member panel called the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. Although it is clear the members are not unified in their critique—individual members attached separate letters—the document calls for "substantial revisions" to EPA's assessment of PM, including giving more weight to what it called the "discordant" evidence among the 2,800 published studies cited in the EPA's 1,900-page science assessment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Substantial discordant and conflicting evidence remains ignored or unresolved," the Trump administration-appointed CASAC wrote, "leading to repeated assertions that the literature shows consistent and coherent positive associations when in fact it shows a mixture of positive and negative results."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When asked for comment on the critique, a spokesperson for the EPA said by email: "We appreciate the work of the CASAC and we will review the report."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Who Are New Committee Members Listening To?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The CASAC, now chaired by Louis Anthony "Tony" Cox, Jr., a Denver-based consultant, offers a few examples of the studies it wants to see the EPA give more weight to. Among them are studies that are authored, in fact, by Cox himself—whose clients have included the American Petroleum Institute, the tobacco industry and the chemical industry.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other studies mentioned by the CASAC are by S. Stanley Young, a former pharmaceutical industry statistician based in Raleigh, N.C., who is an adviser to the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that has led a years-long campaign to discredit climate science. Young is now also an EPA science adviser.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The CASAC also pointed to the work of James Enstrom, a Los Angeles epidemiologist who for years has questioned the health risks of particulate matter. A former tobacco industry researcher, Enstrom was a plaintiff in a 2016 lawsuit brought by the fossil fuel industry-funded Energy and Environment Legal Institute that challenged the makeup of the previous CASAC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Many of the environmental scientists who were appointed to EPA's advisory panels had received funding from EPA at some point in their careers, which the Enstrom suit said was a conflict of interest. In 2017, Trump's first EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, made the same argument when he replaced scientific experts from the existing science advisory boards with new appointees—including a number of industry allies and consultants, like Cox and Young.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">'CASAC Itself Lacks Necessary Expertise'</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One scientist who was among those removed from the CASAC last year, H. Christopher Frey, an environmental engineer at the University of North Carolina, said the harsh science critique from the Trump administration-appointed committee comes amid "numerous major changes to the [air quality standards] review process that collectively undermine its quality, integrity and credibility."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Most astonishing is the arrogant and insulting tone of this letter toward EPA scientific staff," Frey, a former chairman of the CASAC, said in an email to InsideClimate News. Frey dismissed as "patently absurd" the document's assertion that the EPA's approach on particulate matter was unscientific. "The statement is ironic given that the CASAC itself lacks necessary expertise," he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In fact, the CASAC recommended that it be given access to additional technical expertise in order to complete its review of EPA science on particulate matter. Two members of the CASAC called for the EPA to reconstitute a 20-member special review panel on particulate matter that EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler disbanded in October, just prior to the start of the peer review. That panel included experts in the science of particulate matter and health effects—expertise that is now missing on the CASAC. Although much of the science on the health risks of particulate matter is from large human studies, there are no epidemiologists on the current CASAC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In one striking passage of its draft peer review, the CASAC said it is unable to reach consensus on the link between particulate matter and mortality—the "causality determination of mortality from PM2.5 exposure." Some members "are of the opinion that, although uncertainties remain, the evidence supporting the causal relationship between PM2.5 exposure and mortality is robust, diverse, and convincing," the document said. But other committee members think EPA should provide a better justification for its determination that there is a causal relationship between PM exposure and premature death.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Daniel Greenbaum, president of the Boston-based Health Effects Institute (HEI), a research institute that has conducted major studies on air pollution, said that he was surprised at that passage.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Given that there is more than a decade worth of work now looking at the epidemiology, the toxicology, and a number of other things to see whether or not PM can contribute to mortality, there's pretty robust literature that says that," said Greenbaum. HEI has offered its own critiques of some aspects of EPA's assessment—for example, it does not agree with EPA's conclusion on nervous system effects. But HEI does not dispute EPA's fundamental conclusion on mortality risk. "By most standards, people would say that the evidence has strengthened over the last 20 years," Greenbaum said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Greenbaum noted that the committee's review document is only a draft. The CASAC has set a conference call for March 28 to discuss the document and the next steps before submitting its final recommendations to Wheeler.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18233378/william-happer-trump-climate-change-panel</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pentagon and several federal agencies have repeatedly warned over the years that climate change is a threat to national security. Yet the White House is reportedly convening a panel to question it anew.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Washington Post, citing a National Security Council (NSC) discussion paper it obtained, reports that White House staff are preparing an executive order for President Donald Trump’s signature that would establish a Presidential Committee on Climate Security to be chaired by a notorious climate change denier.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That man, NSC senior director William Happer, argued on CNBC in 2014 that “the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">John Whitehouse of Media Matters dredged up the video:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[vid twit?]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer’s views have gotten no less extreme since then. When he was under consideration for the role of Trump’s science adviser in early 2017, Happer sent an email to a Jezebel reader asserting that the “demonization of CO2” “really differs little from the Nazi persecution of the Jews, the Soviet extermination of class enemies or ISIL slaughter of infidels.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Media Matters has previously detailed how Happer, a retired Princeton professor who is not trained as a climate scientist, has tried — unsuccessfully — to conceal the fact that oil interests have directly funded his “research.” And as a recent paper in Nature Climate Change noted, the fossil fuel industry has long been involved in campaigns in US politics “aiming to refute, confuse and obstruct acceptance of the reality of climate change,” using scientists just like Happer to spread misinformation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Trump administration keeps trying to muddy the waters about climate science</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Post’s report about the White House’s new panel is the latest indication that the Trump administration is trying to actively mislead the public on the well-established science of climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As Vox’s Umair Irfan and Alex Ward have reported, many agencies in the executive branch of Trump’s own government have been warning the president and the American people of the severe threats of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The impacts and costs of climate change are already being felt in the United States, and changes in the likelihood or severity of some recent extreme weather events can now be attributed with increasingly higher confidence to human-caused warming,” according to the National Climate Assessment, released in November.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Asked about the National Climate Assessment by a reporter in November, Trump flatly said, “I don’t believe it.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Last month, the Pentagon released a report detailing the national security threat posed by climate change. Weeks later, the intelligence community released its annual consensus World Threat Assessment. The document echoes the Pentagon’s finding that climate change is a major threat:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Climate hazards such as extreme weather, higher temperatures, droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, sea level rise, soil degradation, and acidifying oceans are intensifying, threatening infrastructure, health, and water and food security. Irreversible damage to ecosystems and habitats will undermine the economic benefits they provide, worsened by air, soil, water, and marine pollution.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The NSC discussion paper obtained by the Post about the new panel suggests it would be created with an eye toward muddying the waters about the Pentagon and intelligence community’s findings. Though the paper acknowledges that a number of federal government reports have concluded climate change is a major threat, it goes on to claim “these scientific and national security judgments have not undergone a rigorous independent and adversarial scientific peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as implications for national security.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Given Happer’s views, there’s little doubt that he’ll indulge Trump if he wants to use the panel to deny the well-established science of climate change. In doing so, the consequences are grave: He’d further imperil the United States and future generations everywhere.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref mma</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A professor who was caught agreeing to hide the oil funding behind a climate denial research paper named Breitbart News as a media outlet that could "likely help" publicize the research, according to emails unearthed as part of an undercover investigation by Greenpeace. Indeed, Breitbart News has frequently cited Princeton Emeritus Professor William Happer to promote the supposed "benefits" of climate-warming carbon pollution and argue against a "war on CO2" -- including just days before the Greenpeace investigation was released. And now that Greenpeace has exposed Happer's ethically dubious actions, Breitbart News is defending Happer's behavior as "morally and scientifically unimpeachable."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On December 8, Greenpeace released the results of its investigation, in which Greenpeace UK reporters claiming to represent oil and coal companies asked two university professors to write industry-friendly research papers, and the professors agreed to do so without disclosing the fossil fuel funding behind them. According to Greenpeace, the investigation details "how fossil fuel companies can secretly pay academics at leading American universities to write research that sows doubt about climate science and promotes the companies' commercial interests." </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As part of its report about the investigation, titled "Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding," Greenpeace released a series of emails between its undercover staffers and the two academics, William Happer and Penn State Emeritus Professor Frank Clemente. In an email exchange in early November, a Greenpeace employee who was posing as an oil company consultant based in Beirut asked Happer if he could write a briefing paper "examin[ing] the benefits of fossil fuels to developing economies," and if there were any "US outlets or contacts you may have" that could help "get this research out far and wide." The Greenpeace employee also mentioned a London Times column praising carbon emissions by Matt Ridley, who Happer said was in "close touch" with a pro-carbon group called the CO2 Coalition that Happer helped organize. The Greenpeace employee then asked Happer if Ridley -- a Times columnist who also frequently writes op-eds published by The Wall Street Journal -- "would help to disseminate our research." Happer replied: "I am sure Matt Ridley will be interested in whatever you produce. The Breitbart news organization would also likely help, as would various blogs, syndicated columnists, etc."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Given Breitbart News' past coverage of Happer, it should come as no surprise that he mentioned Breitbart when asked to name media outlets that would promote his industry-funded, climate-denying research. For instance:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A June 3, 2015 Breitbart article touted a letter from Happer and two other physicists attacking the American Physical Society (APS) for a statement recognizing the reality of man-made climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A January 22, 2015 Breitbart article purporting to list off "Ten reasons why the war on CO2 has done far more harm than good" approvingly quoted Happer referring to "the jihad against atmospheric carbon dioxide."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">An October 24, 2014 Breitbart article quoted "climate expert" Happer as saying: "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A September 2, 2011 Breitbart article quoted Happer as follows: "Disagreeing with [the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is like going to Saudi Arabia and criticizing Muhammad."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On December 4, several weeks after Happer mentioned Breitbart News in his email to Greenpeace (and just days before Greenpeace released the results of its investigation), Breitbart News published yet another article touting Happer, this one titled "Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy." In it, Breitbart's John Hayward wrote a highly sympathetic profile of Happer's climate science denial, asserting that a white paper Happer co-authored was "meant to be a conversation-starter" and took "a non-confrontational approach with copious footnotes and supporting sources, inviting readers to perform their own research and gain a fuller understanding of CO2 and its benefits." Hayward also stated that Happer "lamented the vicious treatment given to scientists who showed even modest skepticism toward the link between CO2 and climate change."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After Greenpeace released its investigation, Breitbart News' James Delingpole rushed to Happer's defense with a December 8 article, in which he wrote: "What's clear is that [at] every stage Happer's behaviour was morally and scientifically unimpeachable." Delingpole alleged that Happer was not at fault because he made clear he "would only say in his paper what he believed anyway" and indicated that he did not "wish to benefit personally from the fee, but preferred that the money should go to a tax-exempt educational charity, which pays only his travel expenses."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It's true that Happer has a long track record of advocating for the purported "benefits" of carbon pollution, and it's also true that he requested in his emails to the undercover Greenpeace employee that "whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition" -- the group Happer helped organized earlier this year. But Delingpole tellingly did not provide Happer's answer to two other questions Delingpole noted that Greenpeace had raised: "Would the CO2 Coalition be happy to take a direct donation on condition the donor remained anonymous?" and "Might Happer be able to get his paper peer-reviewed by sympathetic authors?"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is where Happer's conduct is far from "unimpeachable," as Breitbart News claimed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Greenpeace staffer posing as a representative of the Middle Eastern oil company told Happer over email that "we are happy to make a direct donation to the CO2 Coalition, providing it is anonymous," and asked Happer whether "the CO2 Coalition voluntarily discloses its funders." Happer replied that he believed the CO2 Coalition isn't "required to make public any donors, although it is required to disclose them to the Internal Revenue Service." He also forwarded the question to William O'Keefe, another member of the Board of Directors of the CO2 Coalition and former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Petroleum Institute. O'Keefe replied by suggesting that the oil company funnel the funds through the Donors Trust, which has been dubbed the "dark-money ATM" of the conservative movement:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We are under no obligation to identify donors, except to the IRS but I think that is just organizations. When people ask the IRS or a firms 990 [sic], the donor list is redacted. If the person participates in the Donors Trust, he/she can make the donation through that and have complete confidentiality.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer then forwarded O'Keefe's response to the undercover Greenpeace employee. As Greenpeace noted, in his emails "Happer also disclosed that [coal giant] Peabody Energy paid $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."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The exchange between Happer and the undercover Greenpeace staffer exemplifies how the fossil fuel industry's funding of shoddy science can be hidden from public view, and how this strategy can apply not just to the research papers themselves but also to op-eds and other media coverage about them. Indeed, the other university professor that Greenpeace approached, Penn State's Frank Clemente, listed over email a series of op-eds he had written that had been published in newspapers across the United States, and then observed: "Note that in none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The other serious issue raised in Happer's emails relates to peer review, the process by which scholarly work is checked by a group of experts in the same field prior to publication. As Greenpeace documented, in his emails Happer "laid out details of an unofficial peer review process run by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK climate sceptic think tank, and said he could ask to put an oil-funded report through a similar review process, after admitting that it would struggle to be published in an academic journal." Specifically, Happer wrote that if he submitted the research paper to a peer-reviewed journal, it might "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." Instead, Happer proposed a review process that would not be anonymous and would be conducted by the climate-denying Global Warming Policy Foundation, writing that although "purists might object that the process did not qualify as a peer review ... I think it would be fine to call it a peer review."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Global Warming Policy Foundation recently conducted a similar review of another pro-carbon pollution paper, with Ridley -- who used to be a regular columnist for The Wall Street Journal -- deceptively alleging in the London Times that the paper had been "thoroughly peer reviewed."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Logo: The Washington Times</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reliable Reporting. The Right Opinion. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New York Times hit with backlash for labeling Princeton physicist a 'climate denialist'</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Best states for concealed carry — ranked worst to first</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In this Oct. 9, 2007, file photo, reviewed by a U.S. Dept of Defense official, U.S. military personnel inspect each occupied cell on a two-minute cycle at Camp 5 maximum-security facility on the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in Cuba. An effort to decrease the detainee population appears to have bogged down as authorities wrestle with what to do with those who cannot easily be brought to trial but are considered too dangerous to free, and others who have been cleared for release but can’t be sent to their home countries. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, File)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Guantanamo not in the picture for Trump despite vow to ‘load up’ prison’s empty cells</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">staff</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wesley Pruden</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">No end of the Mueller minstrels in sight</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">staff</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Monica Crowley</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conditioning the masses to an extreme agenda</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">View all </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">QUESTION OF THE DAY</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Was Trump right to declare 'national emergency' for border wall?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Question of the Day</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> YES</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> NO</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> NOT SURE</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> View results</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">STORY TOPICS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">POLITICS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ENVIRONMENT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">WILLIAM HAPPER</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ROY SPENCER</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A man polishes the sign for The New York Times at the company's headquarters, July 18, 2013 in New York. The newspaper has faced declines in print advertising and subscription revenue. The company has tried to offset those drops by increasing the number of digital subscribers. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A man polishes the sign for The New York Times at the company’s headquarters, July 18, 2013 in New York. The newspaper has faced declines in print advertising and subscription revenue. The company has tried to offset those drops by ... more ></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Thursday, February 21, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Princeton professor emeritus William Happer’s role in forming a White House climate security committee didn’t sit well with a number of media outlets, including The New York Times, which called the eminent physicist a “denialist.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The headline prompted a backlash from those who object to applying a derogatory label associated with Holocaust disbelief to scientists and others who challenge worst-case climate-change scenarios.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Among those who bristled at the term was Roy Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville principal research scientist, NASA U.S. Science Team leader, and author of Amazon bestsellers such as “Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed on Global Warming” (2017).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Journalists using the ‘denialist’ label demean their profession,” Mr. Spencer said in an email. “None of the prominent skeptical scientists I know deny some level of recent warming, or humans as a contributing cause.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Including Mr. Happer. “I know Will,” Mr. Spencer said. “Dr. Happer doesn’t deny that increasing CO2 might have some small influence on climate.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He continued, “The question is the magnitude of the influence, whether the benefits of more CO2 are being ignored, and whether reducing CO2 substantially might well impoverish humanity.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Will Happer is an esteemed Princeton physics prof who believes that CO2 is plant food and that climate hysteria is just that.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To the NYTimes, however, he is no different than a Holocaust denier.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Journalism.@CoralMDavenport pic.twit</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) February 21, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">his student not an asshole, opposite</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Petroleum and Propaganda: The Anatomy of the Global Warming Denial Industry</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Article</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 2012</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[object Object]John Farley</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James Powell was inspired to write this important new book because of a remarkable paradox: among climate scientists, there is a near-unanimous consensus that global warming is occurring now, is largely manmade, and will cause very severe environmental problems if humanity continues business as usual. However, among the lay public the picture is much more mixed: only about half of the U.S. public agrees with the climate scientists. Why the enormous discrepancy?… The Inquisition of Climate Science explains in detail how the global-warming-denialist ideas that serve the interests of the oil companies (and fossil-fuels industry) become sincerely held beliefs for a significant fraction of society. This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">View</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">16 Reads4 Citations</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our Last Chance to Save Humanity?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Article</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sep 2010</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[object Object]John Farley</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009), 320 pages, $25.00, hardcover. James Hansen, one of the world’s most </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer - Wikipedia</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William "Will" Happer (born July 27, 1939) is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. He is the Cyrus ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Career · ?Views · ?Honors</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New York Times labels William Happer, Princeton physicist, a 'climate ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.washingtontimes.com/.../new-york-times-labels-william-happer-princeton...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3 days ago - Princeton professor emeritus William Happer's role in forming a White House climate security committee didn't sit well with a number of media ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer is Trump's pick to chair new climate change panel - Vox</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/.../william-happer-trump-climate-change-panel</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4 days ago - Trump’s pick to chair new climate panel once said CO2 has been maligned like “Jews under Hitler”. William Happer has bizarre, backward views about climate science. ... That man, NSC senior director William Happer, argued on CNBC in 2014 that “the demonization of carbon dioxide ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer | DeSmogBlog</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer is the emeritus Eugene Higgens professor of physics and Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University. Happer is a director ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">White House prepares to scrutinize intelligence agencies' finding that ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../ccc8b29e-3396-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.ht...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4 days ago - The proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security is being spearheaded by William Happer, a National Security Council senior director ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer | Department of Physics - Princeton Physics</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://phy.princeton.edu/people/william-happer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer. Professor Emeritus. Phone: 609-258-4382. Email Address: happer@Princeton.EDU. Assistant: Antonia Sarchi. Office Location: 258 Jadwin Hall.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">About The Happer Group - Princeton Physics - Princeton University</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">physics.princeton.edu/atomic/happer/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We are interested in studying the physics of spin-polarized atoms and nuclei, and the use of such polarized systems in various applications, including polarized ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Web results</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump's likely science adviser calls climate scientists 'glassy-eyed cult ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.theguardian.com/.../trump-science-adviser-william-happer-climate-change-c...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer, frontrunner for job of providing mainstream scientific opinion to officials, backs crackdown on federal scientists' freedom to ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A Physicist and Possible Adviser to Trump Describes His ... - ProPublica</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.propublica.org/.../a-physicist-and-possible-adviser-to-trump-describes-his-lo...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Brilliant and controversial, Dr. Will Happer of Princeton says being called a climate denier feels like being labeled a Nazi sympathizer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer: Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again - WSJ</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In The Wall Street Journal, William Happer writes that the observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with ...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2/19 capt bak</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6/16 hack poster boy? pension plan still useful?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">how was this feck not taken out? mercer, bradly and koch $</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/10/02/climate-science-deniers-trump-admin-happer-wehrum-rollins-wynn-simmons</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">readfearn</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">here are five folks spearheading the United States government who think that when it comes to climate change, they know better than all of the world’s main scientific institutions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There’s Donald Trump himself, of course, who famously tweeted that climate change was a hoax invented by the Chinese, and said that a cold snap in the weather overturns a century or more of scientific inquiry.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Then there’s energy secretary Rick Perry, whose fuzzy logic on the science sees him unconvinced that CO2 is the key driver of climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior, is similarly confused and non-committal about the impacts of burning fossil fuels, as is former coal-lobbyist-turned-EPA head Andrew Wheeler. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson said in 2015 that climate change was “irrelevant,” that temperatures were driven by natural cycles and, since then, has avoided questions about the role of human activity in climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">OK, so there are more than five (with Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, and Jeff Sessions among those who have denied the science in the past), but these five are well positioned to influence the energy and climate policies of the nation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wheeler, for example, is driving through cuts to national efficiency standards for motor vehicles and is relaxing pollution rules on coal power plants. Zinke and Perry are aggresively promoting fossil fuel growth with Trump as the climate-wrecker-in-chief. Carson heads an agency that has a role in promoting (or not) climate change adaptation and resilience for homes and properties, particularly after natural disasters.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Remembering not only do these five reject the advice of the world’s major science academies, but also the expertise of the scientists working in their own government agencies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But while these five might be relative household names with their views well reported, DeSmog presents five lesser-known climate science deniers inside the administration who are also in positions to gut federal action on climate and promote fossil fuel-friendly policies, backed by their own convictions that climate change just isn't much of a problem.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Will Happer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Will Happer, emeritus professor from Princeton University, was once in the running as Trump’s science advisor but has now been appointed to the National Security Council, specializing in emerging technologies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After news of Happer’s appointment became public, Science, republishing E&E News, characterized the 79-year-old physicist as a “vocal critic of mainstream climate science.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Happer is more than a mere critic — he has acted as an enabler and activist against action on climate change for well over a decade.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For years, Happer was chairman at the George Marshall Institute and then, when that was shuttered, he founded the CO2Coalition with former Exxon director, the late Roger Cohen. Both groups took fringe positions on the science of climate change, with Happer claiming that adding more fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere will be good for humans.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2015, Happer was caught in a sting by Greenpeace when he offered to write a report on the “benefits” of CO2 for a fake oil client and then hide the funding, which would be directed to the CO2 Coalition. Since then, that group has received funding from the foundation of Trump backer and hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In December 2016, Happer attended a conference organized by conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin. Now he’s on the National Security Council.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Late in 2017, the Trump administration nixed climate change from a list of global threats to the U.S. in the National Security Strategy. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It's safe to say Happer won't be leading any pushes to add it back in.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bill Wehrum</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bill Wehrum is the U.S. government’s most senior official on air pollution, as the assistant administrator in the Office of Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wehrum is a long-serving lawyer for the coal industry, as well as petrochemical and petroleum industry groups (such as Koch Industries).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wehrum’s office is also tasked with looking at regulations to tackle power plant pollution and climate change and recently proposed the Affordable Clean Energy rule as a replacement for Obama's Clean Power Plan. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But as the New York Times reported, Wehrum has been delivering big time for his former fossil fuel industry clients by proposing the new rule, which EPA's own analysis shows would increase premature deaths from pollution.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One former EPA director, Bruce Buckheit, told the New York Times: “They basically found the most aggressive and knowledgeable fox and said, ‘Here are the keys to the hen-house.'”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Over a decade earlier, Wehrum was in the same position at EPA as he is now and back then argued against granting California a Clean Air Act waiver to set more stringent pollution standards for vehicles. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Back in power at the EPA, he ran the agency's midterm review of auto emissions standards, which this year recommended rolling back the stricter standards proposed by the Obama administration.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Under question during his confirmation hearings, Wehrum claimed that CO2 emissions as a main driver of climate change, which the government’s own scientists confirm, was to him an “open question." [vid]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Brooke Rollins</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rollins was an aide to Texas Governor Rick Perry before spending 15 years leading the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), which she left in early 2018 to become assistant to the president in the Office of American Innovation (OIA), based in the White House (some wonder what the OIA actually does).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">During her time at TPPF, Rollins promoted the work of the organization’s Kathleen Hartnett White, a climate science denier and fossil fuel evangelist whose controversial nomination to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality was ultimately withdrawn.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In August 2018, Rollins appeared at the Heartland Institute’s energy conference alongside that think tank’s new president Tim Huelskamp.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At the conference, Rollins nodded as Huelskamp suggested American schoolchildren’s heads were being “filled with mush” about the dangers of CO2.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When asked if the inner-workings of the White House were as chaotic as some media had claimed, Rollins replied: “Is there chaos? Yes. But I would say it’s like the chaos of my home — having four children in five years.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Home life was like a “goat rodeo,” she said, and working in the White House wasn’t “much different.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While at TPPF, Rollins wrote that Trump should exit the Paris climate agreement. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What she's actually doing in her role with OIA remains unclear, but the fact that she appeared at the America First Energy Conference, hosted by a climate science denying think tank, indicates she isn't likely straying from her previous positions on climate and energy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Todd Wynn</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Todd Wynn is director of the Interior Department’s Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs after spending years in pro-fossil fuel industry think tanks, many with Koch network connections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Wynn’s CV is his time working at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the corporate bill mill where he led that group’s energy task force.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In that position, he fought against state renewable energy mandates and federal regulation of fracking fluids.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lisa Graves, co-director of DocumentedInvestigations.org, has described Wynn as an “aggressive fossil fuel insider.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In his new position with the Department of the Interior, Wynn is responsible for “strengthen[ing] relationships between state and local partners and external stakeholders” with Secretary Zinke's office, which, by the looks of it, has already been quite cozy with fossil fuel stakeholders.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">An investigation by HuffPost alleged Wynn may have violated an ethics pledge by continuing to liaise with former associates while in his new job.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Wynn has been a rising star in the influential network of fossil fuel-funded think tanks that push policies and produce pseudoscientific research to muddle the debate on climate change,” the HuffPost report detailed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wynn has himself questioned the role that fossil fuel emissions have on warming the planet, suggesting in 2010 that it was “absolutely ridiculous” to claim CO2 was driving climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Daniel Simmons</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Who better to lead the Trump administration's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy than a man who once asked for that same office to be closed while barracking for fossil fuels? Daniel Simmons is just that guy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As reported by DeSmog and others, Simmons spent years working for so-called “free market think tanks,” including the Institute for Energy Research, before joining the Trump transition team and then securing the nomination for the role, located in the Department of Energy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Simmons has a history of working at organizations that attack programs aimed at encouraging the development of clean energy industries like solar and wind power. But in 2015, the American Energy Alliance (AEA), where he was working, attacked the office Simmons now heads, writing disapprovingly that its role was to “promote and subsidize 'clean energy' as determined by government bureaucrats.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The office, AEA wrote, “aims to control multiple sectors of the economy, from energy production and transmission to manufacturing and construction.” Cutting the office entirely could “save” the administration more than $9 billion. Simmons himself has claimed that the costs of the Paris climate agreement target of keeping global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius would be greater than any benefits.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Perfect man for the job? In the Trump administration, the answer is yes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref1</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://YYY.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/dec/06/more-terrifying-than-trump-the-booming-conspiracy-culture-of-climate-science-denial</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For years now geologists have been politely but forcefully arguing over the existence or otherwise of a new epoch – one that might have started decades ago.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Some of the world’s most respected geologists and scientists reckon humans have had such a profound impact on the Earth that we’ve now moved out of the Holocene and into the Anthropocene.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It’s not official. But it’s close.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dropping nuclear bombs and burning billions of tonnes of fossil fuels will do that to a planet, as will clearing swaths of forests to make way for food production and supermarket car parks and the like.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Anthropocene epoch: scientists declare dawn of human-influenced age</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Read more</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That’s all in the real world though, and sometimes you might get the horrible, chilling idea that when it comes to the production of our thoughts and ideas, that’s not the place a lot of us live anymore.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So I’d like to also propose the idea of an impending new epoch – the Trumpocene – that in the spirit of the era itself is based solely on a few thoughts held loosely together with hyperlinks and a general feeling of malaise.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the Trumpocene, the epoch-defining impacts of climate change are nothing more than a conspiracy. Even if these impacts are real, then they’re probably good for us.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The era is named, of course, for the phenomenon that is Donald Trump, the Republican pick for US president whose candidacy has been defined by a loose grasp of facts, jingoistic posturing, populist rhetoric, his amazing hair and his treatment of women.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So what are the things that might define the Trumpocene?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Is it the point at which large numbers of people started to reject the views of large groups of actual experts – people with university qualifications and things – in exchange for the views of anyone who agrees with them? (Brexit, anyone?)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How about that point when a critical mass of people have become convinced that they can Google their way out of the laws of physics?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Let’s go and dig for evidence of the Trumpocene.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A few months ago, Trump gave an interview to polemicist and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who could be the angriest person on the internet.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jones has a regular online radio and TV show called Infowars that has expanded beyond being a vehicle for Jones’s cult personality to include regular news bulletins and a line in “alternative” health therapies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Las Vegas shooting was 'false flag' operation, InfoWars founder claims</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Read more</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jones thinks that climate change is a scam being forced on us by the United Nations, which, in turn, is a totalitarian regime and kingpin of a new world order.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The a fervent Trump supporter has told his viewers that the both US president, Barack Obama, and the Democrat nominee, Hilary Clinton, were “literal demons” who smelt of sulphur. I kid you not.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In Australia, we have a senator who similarly sees climate change as a thing made up by the UN. Our top-rating radio host, Alan Jones (no relation), has said climate science is “witchcraft”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now, before I go on, there’s a prevailing view (often expressed in the comments of this blog) that climate science deniers and oddballs like Alex Jones should be ignored. In some ways, those commenters are right.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But then you look at the popularity of people like Jones and see that, to increasing numbers of people, they are not people to be ignored, but are paragons of fearless truth-telling.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There’s a demographic to which rhetoric from people like Jones and, more broadly, Trump, appeals.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jones’s YouTube account has about 1.6 million subscribers and is growing. He has 1.2m likes on his Facebook account. His website, according to SimilarWeb, was getting 27m pageviews a month back in February. Now it’s at 36m.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Earlier this year Jones snagged a rare interview with the conservative blogger Matt Drudge. Jones and Drudge expressed mutual admiration.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Drudge’s news and opinion aggregator website, the Drudge Report, is a genuine web phenomenon and considered hugely influential.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With about 1.37bn page views a month, the Drudge Report is the second-ranked media site in the United States — 600m views behind msn.com but 300m ahead of Google’s news page.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Drudge Report also tends to link to news items that disparage any action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There’s now a whole media ecosystem that climate science denialism can exist inside, where there’s little scrutiny of the views of deniers. US-based sites like the Drudge Report, Infowars, Breitbart and Daily Caller are part of that ecosystem.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As the Guardian’s Roy Greenslade notes, Breitbart “has the dubious honour of challenging Fox News’s status as America’s most influential conservative media outlet”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not only is the outlet having influence, but its executive chairman, Stephen Bannon, is running Trump’s campaign.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Breitbart too is growing its audience, according to those SimilarWeb statistics. In February 2016 the site registered 89m page views. In August, it was up to 143m.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conspiracy central: the activists painting Clinton as a sick, terrorist-friendly killer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Read more</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Another characteristic of the Trumpocene might be the heightened levels of hubris combined with triumphant rhetoric and the tendency towards insults.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Breitbart writer James Delingpole, for example, rejects the evidence of human-caused climate change. Last week he described a Royal Society fellow and climate scientist as a “puffed-up missy”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“What a bunch of disgraceful, money-grubbing, charlatans the climate alarmists are,” wrote Delingpole, before then trying to link “climate alarmists” with child abusers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For a while, maybe the Trumpocene and the Anthropocene can coexist.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But even though they exist on separate plains, can we really afford to dismiss the impact of either of them?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref2</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://YYY.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/dec/06/more-terrifying-than-trump-the-booming-conspiracy-culture-of-climate-science-denial</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">more terrifying than Trump? The booming conspiracy culture of climate science denial</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Graham Readfearn</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conspiracy websites and hyperpartisan media outlets are building huge online audiences who want to hear climate change is a hoax</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> @readfearn</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tue 6 Dec 2016 01.52 EST Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 12.08 </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> The US president-elect, Donald Trump, who has praised the conspiracy theorist and founder of Infowars.com, Alex Jones. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Back in December 2015, Donald Trump gave a 30-minute live interview to the website Infowars.com and its combustible leader, Alex Jones.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Your reputation is amazing and I will not let you down,” said Trump, who, at the time, was leading in most polls for the Republican presidential nomination.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jones, a fervent Trump supporter, is a conspiracy theorist writ large. He insists there is “iron clad” evidence that the 11 September terrorist attacks in the US were an “inside job”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How a dubious tweet about illegal votes found its way to Trump's megaphone</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Read more</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jones has also said that in 1996 governments deployed a worldwide program to secretly put chemicals into the fuel of aircraft to poison people. These “chemtrails” don’t hurt the “globalists” though, because Jones says they have a “special detox”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oh, and Jones also thinks climate change is a hoax.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Climate change is an issue he covers regularly on his shows, where he has interviewed climate science deniers such as Christopher Monckton (a familiar name to Australians given his multiple speaking tours here), Marc Morano and James Delingpole.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While it’s easy to dismiss the conspiracy culture pushed by Jones as pseudoscientific rubbish, it is not so easy to dismiss the size of the audience he has been building. Jones’s website gets 57m page views per month – double where it was six months ago.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to analytics site Social Blade, the Alex Jones YouTube channel has 1.8m subscribers and just racked up its one billionth (that’s not a typo) video view. (For comparison, the BBC News YouTube channel has 992,000 subscribers.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jones’s Infowars site is part of an ecosystem of hyperpartisan media outlets that insist climate change is a hoax. Like Jones, that ecosystem is rapidly building a receptive online audience.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Those sites can now reach hundreds of millions of people with headlines insisting that human-caused climate change is a hoax, that global warming has stopped or that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is good.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One example. The most popular climate change story across social media in the past six months was not some diligently researched piece from one of the many very good science journalists writing for major news organisations around the world.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rather, the story claimed that thousands of scientists had come forward to declare that climate change was a hoax. The writer was a guy running a website in Los Angeles who worked for eight years for the UK conspiracy theorist David Icke.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Icke thinks the moon might be some sort of spaceship, that the world is controlled by a globalist illuminati and, yes, that climate change is a hoax. Icke is a regular guest on Infowars.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Infowars will often source material from Breitbart – the website that used to be run by Trump’s campaign chairman and soon-to-be chief strategist, Steve Bannon.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Many of Breitbart’s most popular climate change items are written by Delingpole, a British polemicist. Guess what he thinks of climate change?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Given that climate science denial has become a part of the Republican party’s identity, it was hardly surprising that the GOP-led House of Representatives committee on science should tweet a link to a Breitbart climate story written by Delingpole (a story based on a deeply misleading article in the UK’s Daily Mail).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Breitbart is also building its audience. According to data from SimilarWeb, the site now gets 168m page views per month, doubling its reach in the past six months.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Drudge Report – the wildly popular conservative-leaning news aggregator site with 1.7bn page views a month – also helps drive traffic to sites such as Infowars and Breitbart. Its founder, Matt Drudge, was another recent guest of Jones.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Since Trump won the US election, there has been much talk of the influence of “fake news”, with Facebook in particular identified as a key conduit. That encompasses news that is blatantly fabricated but also lounge room content farms that pass themselves off as news. Then there are the hyperpartisan opinion sites.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I’m happy to admit the online growth and reach of climate science denialists and conspiracy theorists terrifies me. Why?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">LeBron James will not stay at Trump-branded hotel in New York</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Read more]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The problem is not that these sites exist but that not enough people seem to know the difference between actual news, fake news, partisan opinion and conspiratorial bullshit. One of those people is the president-elect of the United States.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Either that, or people don’t even care to differentiate between fake and real, especially if what they read taps into their own prejudices.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There is a concerted attempt to cut sensible climate policy off at the knees by building a popular online movement against the science itself.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For decades, the fossil fuel industry and so-called “free market” ideologues at conservative thinktanks have misled the public on the science and the risks of climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now, the decades of material produced by that climate science denial machinery is finding a new audience. Those talking points are being reheated and screamed, in FULL CAPS.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So what’s the answer? No one seems to know but much appears to be in the hands of Google and Facebook.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other than that, a crash course in critical thinking and recognising climate science denial brought to you by the illuminati might be the order of the day.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref3</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://YYY.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/feb/21/trumps-potential-science-adviser-william-happer-hanging-around-with-conspiracy-theorists</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx many vids</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump's potential science adviser William Happer: hanging around with conspiracy theorists</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Graham Readfearn</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Princeton atomic physicist is no climate scientist – and he’s pushing the same old denier myths</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> @readfearn</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mon 20 Feb 2017 23.14 EST Last modified on Thu 5 Jul 2018 16.52 EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> William Happer: who is Trump’s likely science adviser? – video report</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer is a physicist at Princeton University – one of those US academic institutions with brand recognition for academic excellence that travels the globe.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer is well known for his contrarian views (that’s the polite term) on human-caused climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So when it emerged last week that the professor might seriously be in the running to be President Donald Trump’s science adviser, that Princeton tag no doubt added an air of authority to his opinions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In short, Happer thinks more CO2 will only be good for the planet – putting him at odds with science academies around the world.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump's likely science adviser calls climate scientists 'glassy-eyed cult'</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Read more</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult,” Happer told the Guardian. “It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer has also compared the “demonisation” of carbon dioxide to the “demonisation of poor Jews under Hitler” – because a Nazi reference will always get you noticed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But here’s the thing — the first of many to note about Happer. First, he is not, by any stretch, an expert on climate change science.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer’s record of getting scientific papers published in leading journals on climate change science is at, or very close to, zero. Simply, he knows a lot about some stuff, but he is not a climate scientist.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While he has a distinguished career as an atomic physicist, previously serving the administration of George HW Bush as a science director, the 77-year-old’s views on climate science are outnumbered by all the credible evidence, all the credible science agencies and are also being laughed at by the Earth’s thermometers and its melting ice sheets and glaciers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Prof Michael Oppenheimer has scores of articles on climate science in leading journals going back to the mid-1990s. He’s a climate scientist … at Princeton.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So what does Oppenheimer think of his colleague?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“With respect to climate science and scientists,” Oppenheimer told me by email, “[Happer] is not only unknowledgeable but appears to have become unmoored.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ouch. But then, maybe Oppenheimer has glassy eyes?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer has laid out his thoughts on climate change in some detail in an ongoing Focused Civil Dialogue (my irony meter just exploded) with the Australian climate scientist Prof David Karoly.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While Happer’s contribution seems technical, it’s the same parade of zombie talking points that actual climate scientists have been dealing with for years.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer says CO2 levels and temperatures have been much higher in the past and that life “flourished” under these conditions many millions of years ago.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He doesn’t mention that during those times sea levels were probably several metres – sometimes well over 10 metres – higher than they are today. If that’s the world you want to advocate, then it’s time to call the removal guys for most of the world’s major coastal cities.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The climate scientist Dr Nerilie Abram, of Australian National University, specialises in the climate of the ancient past. She told me:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Warm periods in Earth’s past tell us a lot about how our climate works and what we can expect if we don’t act to halt current climate change. The last time that temperatures were similar to now, this caused parts of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets to slowly melt and sea level globally ended up six to nine metres higher than now. If we go back 3 million years – the last time carbon dioxide levels were at today’s level – sea level was probably around 10 to 40 metres higher. Life on Earth might not be fazed by those numbers or even higher ones, but for human civilisations they would be catastrophic.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer also rolls out that mouldy old chestnut that CO2 is just food for plants, but ignores the research on the impacts that higher concentrations of CO2 will have on our global food supply.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Research into some staple crops such as rice, wheat and sorghum, for example, finds that they end up with less protein when CO2 is at higher concentrations. That’s before you worry about how food crops will cope with droughts and heatwaves.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At a conference in December Happer said his “main concern” was that climate change was “likely to damage public perceptions of science”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If Happer is concerned about the reputation of science, then he’s picking some very odd places to hang around – that conference being one of them.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Arizona gathering was organised by Freedom Force International – a group led by the famed conspiracy theorist G Edward Griffin. He fits right in with the booming culture of conspiracy that’s growing big audiences online.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Among many other things, Griffin has said there is “no such thing” as HIV and that human-caused climate change is a hoax.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Griffin also promotes conspiracies around “chemtrails”. Just punch that word into your favourite search engine for hours of family fun (don’t actually do that).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To summarise, there’s a plan to spray the atmosphere with chemicals added to planes to poison everyone and “they” are using weather modification as a weapon.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Griffin has said “somebody is spending a lot of money and effort to spray the planet” and that this is probably some international effort.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Also appearing at the conference was the British hereditary peer and climate science denier Lord Christopher Monckton, who likes to say he was appointed as a reviewer of the last big UN intergovernmental panel on climate change report without mentioning that, literally, you need no qualifications and can “appoint” yourself.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer’s speech to the conference isn’t yet online but an interview he gave at the venue after is.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Facebook Twitter Pinterest]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer gives an interview on the sidelines of a Freedom Force International conference in Arizona in December]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He goes over the same ground. CO2 is really awesome and life would be much better if there was a lot more of it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I don’t think there are any cons to CO2 … we are really in a CO2 famine,” he says. “My main concern is that it’s likely to damage public perceptions of science. I am hoping that I and other scientists can persuade the public that we are not all for sale.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I’m struggling to understand how someone concerned with the reputation of science would want to lend his name, and the name of Princeton University, to a conference organised by conspiracy theorists.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Read more</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is also the bit when we mention that Happer was caught in a sting by Greenpeace activists in 2015, when he offered to write a report on the benefits of carbon dioxide for a fake fossil fuel client while avoiding any need to disclose the funding’s source.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer asked that rather than pay him, the fake lobbyists should instead pay the CO2 Coalition – a climate science denial group based in the US. Tax documents list Happer as a director and president.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He has also given evidence in a court case on behalf of the coal company Peabody Energy where he similarly asked that his fee go to the CO2 Coalition. He laid these facts out in emails released by Greenpeace, stating that the coalition did not pay him any fees or salary.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Remembering Happer’s dislike of science being “for sale”, it’s noteworthy that his CO2 Coalition colleague Patrick Moore was paid last year by a major European coal lobby organisation to give a presentation in Strasbourg telling the audience we should “celebrate CO2”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">No doubt Happer would argue that money does not influence the views of people like Moore, though he does say that it influences actual climate scientists who get research grants from universities and governments. Go figure.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Whether or not Happer gets the gig as Trump’s science adviser remains to be seen. But given the climate science deniers and fossil fuel advocates who Trump has already employed, it seems Happer will fit right in.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">failing up!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Will Happer has been chosen by President Trump to join the National Security Council as senior director for emerging technologies, an odd role for a man who denies basic climate science, claiming "warming will be very beneficial," and “A coal power plant and a person are emitting essentially the same thing. Mostly water vapor and CO2. […] So CO2 is not a pollutant.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer once offered to produce denier-for-hire "research" promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour (not realizing he was talking to undercover Greenpeace journalists). He's received funding from the scandalous Heartland Institute, and thousands of dollars from coal giant Peabody Energy which was disclosed and verified in a court of law, although that didn't stop Happer from angrily yelling at a Greenpeace investigator, “you son of a btch, I haven’t taken a dime.” Awkward!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read the full profile and browse other individuals and organizations in our research database.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition to providing the start-up funding for Big Green Radicals, Bradley gave $85,000 to the Capital Research Center (CRC), a group led by former Berman and Company employee Scott Walter. The grant was designated for “general operations,” but it may have been used to support the publication Green Watch. A background document on CRC states that, “Green Watch tracks the money flow to environmental nonprofits and critiques their positions, and those of their allies, including their policymaking ones.” (Capital Research Center GPR, August 19, 2014)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Since 2014, the Bradley Foundation has distributed numerous grants to discredit the vast amount of scientific research demonstrating the harmful effects of climate change. In 2014, it gave $65,000 to the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI), a right-wing front group largely funded by oil and gas interests. Newsweek called GMI “a central cog in the denial machine” in 2007.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GMI folded in late 2015, so Bradley recommended $50,000 in “seed funding” the following year for its “successor organization,” the CO2 Coalition. The coalition is led by a Dr. William Happer, a well-known climate change denier. “We’re doing our best to try and counter this myth that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. It’s not a pollutant at all,” Happer said at a Heritage Foundation event on energy and climate.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Another $10,000 Bradley grant in 2014 for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) went to support its Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI). A staff recommendation notes that SPPI “has helped demonstrate that no real-world data confirms that floods, draughts [sic], or hurricanes are becoming more frequent or severe, as global-warming alarmists allege. Neither is there any real-world data that sea levels are about to rise precipitously, inundating the world’s coasted [sic] lowlands, as is also often alleged.” (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change GPR, June 17, 2014)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">orwellian transparency, no press allowed?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">secert sci bs:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">: On April 24, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt released a proposed rule that would restrict which scientific studies EPA could use in creating new regulations. The move — already controversial when it was first revealed over a month ago — would prevent EPA from considering studies in which the data is not available to the public, including the private health information of individuals in medical studies, and which is based on one-time events, such as the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Prominent climate science deniers were in attendance at the EPA announcement, including Marc Morano, Steve Milloy, and Will Happer. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">twit: "era of secret science @EPA is coming to an end. The ability to test, authenticate, & reproduce scientific findings is vital for integrity of rulemaking process. Americans deserve to assess legitimacy of the science underpinning Agency decisions"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> March 16, E&E reported that EPA Admin Scott Pruitt is brewing more plans to further hobble how the EPA uses (or in this case, doesn’t use) science to protect the public. According to E&E, the effort will be similar to the Orwellian-esque HONEST Act that Lamar Smith sponsored a year ago but is stalled in the Senate. Pruitt’s idea is to apply a blanket set of new criteria to studies the EPA can cite. The “sound science” recommendations are designed to sound reasonable, but in practice would render lots of high quality, relevant research off-limits.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">NAS ass enstrom defend:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The letter is below.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For more on liberal political activism at the University of California, read the April 2, 2012 report from the National Association of Scholars, “NAS Report “A Crisis of Competence: The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">###</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">January 25, 2017</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Eric L. Russell</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UC Davis French</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://frenchanditalian.ucdavis.edu/people/profile/96</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">erussell@ucdavis.edu</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Dennis J. Silverman</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UC Irvine Physics and Astronomy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.physics.uci.edu/silverma/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dennis.silverman@uci.edu</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dear Professors Russell and Silverman,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UC professors must not misuse UC resources for political attacks on President Donald J. Trump and his advisors. UC must adhere to underlying state law and must not engage in activities that might violate its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. You can make your political attacks using your own personal resources. Please read the four articles below and realize that you are being watched by those of us who want UC to adhere to its original mission and to not engage in political activism.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thank you very much for your consideration of my request.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sincerely yours,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James E. Enstrom, Ph.D.,M.P.H.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UCLA and Scientific Integrity Institute</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">jenstrom@ucla.edu</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">January 23, 2017 California Political Review “UC Davis Professors STEAL From Students/Taxpayers”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/uc-davis-professors-steal-from-studentstaxpayers/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">January 16, 2017 UCI Energy Observer “Trump Advisor Will Happer is Not a Climate Scientist”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://sites.uci.edu/energyobserver/2017/01/16/trump-advisor-will-happer-is-not-a-climate-scientist/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">January 18, 2017 UCI Energy Observer “Update on the Climate Science Denier’s Praise of Increasing CO2”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://sites.uci.edu/energyobserver/2017/01/18/update-on-the-climate-science-deniers-praise-of-increasing-co2/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">January 18, 2017 UCI Energy Observer “Trump’s Cabinet: Make America Dumber, Sicker, Smoggier, and Thirstier Again”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://sites.uci.edu/energyobserver/2017/01/18/trumps-cabinet-make-america-dumber-sicker-smoggier-and-thirstier-again/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.desmog.uk/2017/06/13/new-irish-climate-science-denial-group-hosts-co2-coalition-director-william-happer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The second meeting in a month of the newly formed climate sceptic group, the Irish Climate Science Forum, took place behind a veil of secrecy and a media blackout in Dublin on June 1, DeSmog UK can confirm.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Guest speaker was noted climate science denier William Happer, a retired Princeton professor who is currently understood to be on a shortlist for the role of Science Advisor to the climate-denying Trump administration in the US.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer is a director of the US-based CO2 Coalition, whose tagline is “Carbon dioxide, a nutrient vital for life”. In December of 2015, Happer was implicated in a Greenpeace investigation where activists posed as consultants for a Middle Eastern energy company and asked Happer and Frank Clemente, an emeritus sociology professor at Pennsylvania State University, to author reports on the benefits of coal and carbon dioxide emissions and keep the source of the funding secret. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer delivered his behind-closed-door presentation in an upmarket Dublin hotel to a hand-picked audience, numbering around 40-50, which included a number of senior staff from Met Éireann, Ireland’s national meteorological service.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">His presentation, which DeSmog has seen, was titled: ‘Irish Agriculture – A New Look at the Influences of Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Carbon Dioxide’.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The ICSF describes itself as “a voluntary group of Irish scientists, engineers and other professionals” and claims to carry out: “neutral, independent analysis of the latest climate research with the purpose of better informing climate and energy policies in Ireland”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In May, DeSmog UK revealed the group launched with a speech by US climate science denier Richard Lindzen.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Spreading Misinformation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer began is speech by excoriating what he called “climate hysteria” and went on to accuse people involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of being “on the take”. Happer added that others, such as climate NGOs and activists, were driven primarily by a “financial agenda”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Within his presentation, one slide claimed that fossil fuel power plants emit no pollution, and equated their CO2 emissions with a human exhaling. His inability to distinguish between CO2 in the current carbon cycle versus injecting carbon from millions of years ago is a standard denier sleight of hand, but it went unchallenged by his Dublin audience sources claim.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Next, Happer presented a series of charts purporting to show that “Global Warming Models Don’t Work!”. For this, he used a long-debunked chart produced by Dr John Christy of the University of Alabama and a favourite among climate deniers in the US Republican Party.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer then did a number of slides explaining how CO2 is really “plant food” and how the world has been in a “CO2 famine for the last several million years”. When challenged by an audience member on this “CO2 as fertilizer” myth, Happer admitted that this was not in fact his area of expertise. But this in no way prevented him from continuing to spread misinformation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One audience member attending Happer’s talk was rural TD (member of parliament), industrial turf cutter and noted climate denier, Michael Fitzmaurice. In a surreal moment, he asked Happer for advice on how to defeat the arguments of people “who claim that climate change is real”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer next stated that radiative forcing “cannot be verified by direct measurement”. This too is manifestly false, as demonstrated by the US Department of Energy’s Berkeley Lab research.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The presumed reason the ICSF invited Happer to present is to provide ammunition to downplay the role of agricultural emissions by inferring that methane is largely irrelevant to climate change. This is the key message the founder of the ISCF, Ray Bates, a retired meteorologist who is an active lobbyist to exempt Ireland’s GHG-intensive beef and dairy sectors from the impact of climate regulations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ireland’s agricultural emissions are by far the highest per capita in the EU, with the government committed to backing the politically powerful farm lobby expanding both forms of ruminant agriculture despite the climate implications.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Closed-Door Science</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr Gerard Fleming, Head of Forecasting with Met Éireann, was invited to both talks but declined to attend. Fleming has also seen Prof Happer’s slide presentation and commented: “a lot of the stuff in there wasn’t science”, adding that it went instead “into the realm of political advocacy”. He stressed that Met Éireann has no corporate connection whatever with the ICSF(Bates is a former assistant director).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr Fleming emphasised that Met Éireann regard IPCC science as the “gold standard” and was baffled by Happer’s assertion about alleged IPCC corruption. “I haven’t seen too many [climate] scientists driving around in gold-plated cars,” he added.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He accepted that the presence of senior Met Éireann staff at both ICSF events could lead to the perception that they were giving the event “silent assent”, but stressed no formal discussion had yet occurred within Met Éireann. “We will probably now have to sit down and consider this internally”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr Fleming added that he was personally unhappy with the closed nature of the ICSF meetings. “Science is not to be discussed behind closed doors; I’m not at all comfortable with that idea of inviting some and excluding others. We need an open exchange of views”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">No information on the funding for Happer’s visit was made available. It is understood that, once again, no cover charge was levied for the meeting, and no donations were sought.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Following ICSF hosting Lindzen for their inaugural meeting last month, their choice of another hard-core denier as their second speaker removes any remaining doubt as to the climate-denying credentials of the well-funded ICSF, whatever about its stated aims of “better informing climate and energy policies in Ireland”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Group organiser, Jim O’Brien, an engineer, refused to answer any questions from DeSmog UK and barred our reporter from attending. DeSmog UK also contacted Happer directly by email with a series of questions, but at time of going to press, he had not responded.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">John Gibbons is a Dublin-based specialist writer and commentator on climate and environmental issues. He blogs at ThinkOrSwim.ie. You can follow him on Twitter here.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">= </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/05/10/conservative-groups-pushing-trump-exit-paris-deal-have-taken-millions-koch-brothers-and-exxon</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The “conservative groups” urging President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement have accepted tens of millions of dollars from groups linked to the billionaire petrochemical brothers Charles and David Koch, ExxonMobil, and the Mercer family.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More than 40 groups have co-signed an open letter urging Trump to keep his campaign promise and “withdraw fully from the Paris Climate Treaty.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The groups, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), The Heartland Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, claim failing to withdraw from the treaty could put Trump’s policy agenda of promoting fossil fuels at risk.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Wall Street Journal has quoted a White House spokesperson saying the president will not make a decision on the Paris agreement until after meeting G-7 leaders later this month.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Analysis carried out by DeSmog and the Climate Investigations Center (CIC) shows many of the groups signing the letter have taken multi-million dollar donations from groups tied to the Koch brothers, who own Koch Industries. Several of the groups have accepted cash from oil giant ExxonMobil while many also deny the basic science linking fossil fuel burning to dangerous climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the letter, the groups say Trump should withdraw from the Paris deal and “stop all taxpayer funding of UN global warming programs” — two promises made by Trump during his campaign.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Paris Deal</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As part of the Paris deal, agreed to by almost 200 countries as part of the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change, the U.S. pledged in a document known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025, based on their levels in 2005.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Paris then requires a more ambitious NDC every five years in perpetuity,” the groups write.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The letter says environment groups and some attorneys general are using court action to try and protect the Obama era’s Clean Power Plan that sought to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The U.S. participation in the Paris deal is being cited in these lawsuits, the groups claim.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Failing to withdraw from Paris thus exposes key parts of your deregulatory energy agenda to unnecessary legal risk,” the letter claims.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing media outlets including Breitbart and The Daily Caller have been reporting the letter from conservative groups without mentioning the known links to the Koch brothers and to their denial of the science of climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Koch Cash</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The DeSmog and CIC analysis, using publicly available IRS disclosures, shows the Koch brothers have donated at least $6.9 million to the groups, much of which went to the Heritage Foundation. Exxon donated about $5.9 million to the groups since the late 1990s.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Several of the letter signers had roles in Trump’s various transition teams, including the CEI’s Myron Ebell and Thomas Pyle of the American Energy Alliance.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2014, Freedom Partners (FP) — a group once described as the Koch brothers secret bank — gave some $16 million to Americans for Prosperity, another of the letter’s signatories. FP also gave $2.3 miilion to the American Energy Alliance.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Denial Dollars</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But as well as accepting millions of dollars from vested interests such as the Kochs and Exxon over the years, another thing the groups have in common is their denial of the clear science linking fossil fuel burning to dangerous climate change — an issue backed by all the major scientific academies around the world.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The analysis shows groups have also accepted about $80 million through two linked funding organisations — Donors Capital Fund and Donors Trust — that academics have confirmed is a key financial source for many U.S. climate science denial groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Koch brothers, through a funding group known as the Knowledge and Progress Fund (KPF), gave more than $7.6 million to the Donors Trust since 2010. The only grants made by the KPF over that period were to Donors Trust.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Heartland Institute, which has been given more than $5 million in recent years by major Trump financier Robert Mercer, is known for organizing regular conferences where climate science denialists gather. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the run-up to one conference in May 2012, Heartland said in a statement: “The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Another signer to the letter is Professor William Happer, the president of the CO2 Coalition — a group that emerged from the disbanded George C. Marshall Institute.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The CO2 Coalition denies the evidence that humans are causing dangerous climate change and runs with the tag line “CO2 — Essential for Life.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer, thought to be in the running as Trump’s science adviser, has compared what he called the “demonization” of CO2, to the “demonization of poor Jews under Hitler.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">zombies don't die:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conservative Op-Eds Argued Wrongly That China and India Are Not Taking Action</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing op-eds falsely claimed that China, India and other developing nations were not committed to Paris goals.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a syndicated column that appeared in USA Today and USA Today Network newspapers, Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment and a former vice president of Americans for Prosperity, wrote, "The Paris treaty effectively bans coal-fired power plants in the United States—while China has 368 coal plants under construction and more than 800 in the planning stage. India's coal production under the deal is allowed to double by 2020—and they are likely to have emissions much higher than what they promised." And in his anti-Paris op-ed in the Boston Herald, Loris wrote, "Developing nations want affordable, dependable energy to raise their standards of living, and countries such as India, China and Indonesia need to use a lot of coal to get there."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">China and India are on pace to meet their emissions targets ahead of schedule.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Washington Post recently reported that an analysis conducted by the Climate Action Tracker found that "China and India are on track to overachieve on their climate pledges" and quoted Bill Hare, CEO of the nonprofit science and policy institute Climate Analytics, saying that China and India "are going to slow the global growth in CO2 emissions significantly." A New York Times editorial discussing the same analysis noted, "The shift from fossil fuels has ... been much faster and more pronounced than most experts expected. China has reduced coal use for three years in a row and recently scrapped plans to build more than 100 coal power plants. Indian officials have estimated that country might no longer need to build new coal plants beyond those that are already under construction."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">China and India are taking big steps to develop clean energy and scale back coal plants.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In January of this year, China announced that it plans to spend more than $360 billion through 2020 on renewable energy sources and is canceling plans to build more than 100 coal-fired power plants. Last year, India announced that it plans to get 57 percent of its total electricity capacity from renewable sources by 2027 and launch a $2 billion equity fund to boost renewable energy development. According to The Associated Press, a March report by the groups CoalSwarm, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace found that "construction starts for coal-fired plants in China and India were down by 62 percent in January from a year earlier while new facilities starting operation declined 29 percent." Additionally, a May 22 New York Times editorial noted, "Electric vehicle sales in China jumped 70 percent last year, thanks in large part to generous government incentives. India is much further behind in this area, but the country's minister of power said last month that all cars sold in the country should be electric by 2030.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Developing nations pushed for a strong Paris agreement and were "crucial" to its adoption.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Developing countries, including the least developed countries, were a key part of the "high ambition coalition" that called for tougher climate change policies and "was widely credited with ensuring the Paris meeting ended in agreement," according to Climate Change News. Far from pushing for a weak agreement and wanting leeway to burn coal, the developing nations have been insistent on the need for fast action to deal with climate change, and have sounded alarms about the role of corporations and lobbyists in UN climate negotiations, fearing that they might weaken emissions goals.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Developing nations committed to cutting emissions even though it's more difficult for them and they have less responsibility to do so.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The world's developing countries have emitted only a small proportion of the climate-warming gases that humans have sent into the atmosphere over the past 160 years, and so they're responsible for only a small proportion of the global warming the world is experiencing. And yet all but two of the world's developing nations signed onto the Paris agreement and submitted action plans, many of which experts said were ambitious. Yet developing countries face a tougher challenge reducing emissions than their wealthier counterparts do. As Robert Lempert of the RAND Corporation explained to the Chicago Tribune, "The richest countries have much of their economy in lower-emitting sectors. ... The U.S. can grow their economy and improve their quality of life without increasing energy use. But in developing countries, you can't do that."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Op-Eds Against the Agreement Pushed Climate Science Denial</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Anti-Paris agreement op-eds spread climate science misinformation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In an op-ed for The Washington Times, Princeton emeritus physics professor and climate denier William Happer wrote that the U.S. "should withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement," claiming, "For too long, well-meaning policymakers have been misled by propaganda, masquerading as science, that more atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will harm the planet ... More CO2 is not a pollutant but is a benefit to humanity." In an op-ed in The Hill, Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute attempted to undermine the scientific rationale behind the Paris agreement by disputing that human activity is the dominant cause of recent global warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Slate's Phil Plait: Claiming CO2 is not a pollutant is "ridiculous" and "in-your-face wrong."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a Feb. 18 column, science journalist Phil Plait wrote in Slate that the frequently used climate-denier claim that CO2 is not a pollutant is "ridiculous," "in-your-face wrong" and a "typical denier distraction technique, trying to downplay or distract you from what's really going on." He summarized the overwhelming scientific consensus: While some carbon dioxide is necessary for plant life, burning fossil fuels and thus releasing excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is warming up the globe "too quickly for many living things to adapt." Carbon pollution is causing rapid changes to the Earth's climate, and, as Plait explained, that speed is the "danger; the rate at which we are heating the planet is unprecedented."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Humans are "by far" the dominant cause of global warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">InsideClimate News reported in 2016 that "ninety to 100 percent of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming due to human activity, according to a peer-reviewed paper published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters. The study, called a 'consensus on consensus' synthesizes findings from prior published research." In 2013, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported, "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines "extremely likely" as having 95 to 100 percent probability. A 2009 letter signed by 18 U.S. scientific organizations stated that "greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver" of climate change. In a 2012 literature review for the blog Skeptical Science, Dana Nuccitelli laid out the overwhelming evidence that humans are the primary driver of climate change, writing, "A wide variety of statistical and physical approaches all arrived at the same conclusion: that humans are the dominant cause of the global warming over the past century, and particularly over the past 50 years. This robust scientific evidence is why there is a consensus among scientific experts that humans are the dominant cause of global warming."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reposted with permission from our media associate Media Matters for America.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">omfg</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">President Donald Trump is on the look-out for a chief science adviser, but who to choose?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If his most recent appointments are any indication of the future, then, on climate change at least, Americans should expect the president to tap a climate science denier.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So it is little surprise then that one person reportedly in the running is 77-year-old Princeton atomic physicist William Happer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer has for more than a decade rejected all the credible evidence on the risks of human-caused climate change. He is often described as an “expert” on climate change, yet his record of publishing research on the issue in peer-reviewed scientific journals is almost non-existent.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So who is he?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer’s expertise is in atomic physics. He served in the George H.W. Bush administration as a science director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But since the late 90s, Happer has become known for his outspoken and often offensive views on climate change and climate scientists, whom he has described as being “more like a cult.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science,” he told The Guardian.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He has also claimed that the “demonization” of carbon dioxide is like the “demonization of poor Jews under Hitler.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In recent times Happer has been associating with conspiracy theorists and other oddballs as he rolls out the same talking points that have been his staple for years. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Since the mid-2000s, Happer was involved with the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank that concentrated heavily on pushing claims that global warming concerns had been over-hyped. Happer was a former chair of the institute — one of many to take cash from oil giant ExxonMobil.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer is now the president of the CO2 Coalition — a group created after the Marshall Institute folded — with the tagline that carbon dioxide (CO2) is “vital for life.” </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2015 Happer was caught in a sting by Greenpeace activists when he offered to write a report on the benefits of carbon dioxide for a fake fossil fuel client. He offered to find a way to hide the funder of the report by asking for the payment to go to the CO2 Coalition.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer’s position is shown to be wrong by all the credible evidence and scientific institutions across the world. His claims can also be easily checked.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So what are his claims?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In December 2016, Happer repeated his long-debunked talking points in an interview with Stefan Molyneux (himself an odd character who has had to fend off accusations that he is running a cult-like group through his FreeDomainRadio enterprise).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the interview, Happer talks about a geological period known as the Phanerozoic eon which started about 540 million years ago and stretches to the present.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer says that over this period CO2 has been much higher, suggesting that everything was all fine and, by implication, it would be fine again if levels of carbon dioxide in the air got up to 1,000 parts per million or more.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Nerilie Abram, a climate scientist at Australian National University specializing in understanding the ancient past, told me:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Phanerozoic covers an enormous amount of Earth’s history — the last 541 million years. If we were to think about that time period as a single day, complex life first evolved at midnight and the age of the dinosaurs (252-66 million years ago) lasted from just after midday (12:49 p.m.) through to 9:04 p.m. Modern humans only evolved at 11:59 p.m. (0.2 million years ago).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So even though the Earth was able to support the slow evolution of life when it had carbon dioxide in the parts per thousand level, sea levels more than 100 meters higher than today, and land masses that were completely different to the countries we currently live in, that planet was certainly nothing like the one that humans have ever lived upon.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer also tells Molyneux: “There was no danger from ocean acidification … all of the other scare stories you read about. They just didn’t happen.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That depends if, when you say there was “no danger from ocean acidification,” you don’t think the extinction of 90 percent of all marine species is anything to write home about. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Research published in the journal Science in 2015 found that ocean acidification from massive injections of carbon into the atmosphere was the cause of a “mass dying” about 250 million years ago which, according to Happer, “just didn’t happen.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer also ignores how warmer conditions in the ancient past have generally coincided with the melting and collapse of ice sheets at the poles, pushing sea levels roughly 30 feet (ten meters) or more higher than they are today.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Many of Happer’s arguments ignore how quickly the climate is changing now compared to the past.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The speed of current climate change doesn’t have an analogue in Earth’s past,” says Abram.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We are able to directly measure the carbon dioxide level of Earth’s atmosphere over the last 800,000 years because of the bubbles of ancient air trapped within Antarctic ice cores. The fastest natural changes in the past occurred as the world warmed out of the ice ages, and saw CO2 levels increase by around 35 parts per million over 1,000 years. So far this century we have added an equivalent amount of CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere — 35 parts per million — in just the last 17 years.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What else does Happer get wrong?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He claims a well-established climate mechanism, known as the water vapor feedback, “does not seem to work” and that this means future warming might not be so bad. Water vapor feedback is the mechanism where adding extra carbon dioxide causes warming, which then enables the atmosphere to hold more water vapor — another key greenhouse gas — that in turn causes more warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“There’s time enough [gone by] to see if it works and it doesn’t seem to work,” says Happer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Unfortunately for Happer, the opposite seems to be true. As challenging as it is to measure, scientists have been using instruments on satellites, weather balloons, and aircraft and have found that water vapor is indeed increasing.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Perhaps Happer would know this if he had been hanging out with leading scientists at genuine academic gatherings, rather than spending time with some genuine oddballs.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As I wrote on The Guardian, in December 2016 Happer was a speaker at a gathering in Arizona organized by G. Edward Griffin and his Freedom Force International organization.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Griffin is a serial conspiracy theorist who thinks the HIV virus is not real, that there is some sort of international plot to spray the planet with chemicals (that’s right, he’s a chemtrailer), and that climate change is a hoax.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Will any of this convince Donald Trump to look elsewhere for his advice on science?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Given Trump is reportedly taking tips from another conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, the likely answer to that question would be “no.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/02/25/trump-potential-science-adviser-will-happer-carbon-dioxide-demonized-jews</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump Advisor Will Happer is Not a Climate Scientist</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Posted on January 16, 2017 by Dennis SILVERMAN</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump Advisor Will Happer is Not a Climate Scientist</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Distinguished Princeton physicist Will Happer was given the honor of visiting our would-be-President Donald Trump at his golden 5th Avenue tower, or White House North. This is because Prof. Happer is one of the leading scientists pushing the climate denier agenda. He also publishes in the Wall Street Journal, that great climate denier journal run by Rupert Murdoch. Looking at Prof. Happer’s publication list since 1994, there are important optics articles, but no climate science articles. That covers the last 22 years, during which most of climate science has been developed. Among his honors, he served as director of the Office of Science in the Department of energy from 1991-93 under President George W. Bush.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Looking at his articles and public testimony, he only parrots the standard climate change or science deniers one liners, which are standardly shown to be false. He adds nothing new or scientific, except a lot of vitriol accusing thousands of climate scientists as frauds, comparable to Lysenko’s false domination of Soviet biology, or even (gasp) to Hitler. Links to these are given in Happer’s Wikipedia article. Trump and his advisors cite several of the fallacious statements in his interviews, as do almost all Republicans in Congress, adding their own vitriol.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(As an aside, I do believe in the statement “As ye sow, so shall you reap” applies to Donald Trump. I also somewhat believe in “As they go low, we go high”. I have to be academic in an academic blog, but I am nerd enough to include sophomoric punning.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The American Physical Society of 47,000 physicists, after much argument, endorsed a mild statement backing climate science. Happer circulated a counter petition, which was signed by only a few hundred, and was dropped.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Happer wrote an article in First Things, titled, “The Truth About Greenhouse Gasses: The Dubious Science of Climate Crusaders”. Fortunately, climate scientist Michael MacCracken, published a 42-page scientific rebuttal of Happer’s 43 assertions, titled: “The Real Truth about Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change: Paragraph-by-Paragraph Comments on an Article by Dr. William Happer”, at Climate Science Watch, September 2011. This article quotes each of Happer’s statements, so you only have to read MacCracken’s article. Dr. MacCracken is a very distinguished climate scientist and a leader of governmental and international climate science committees, as is well documented by Wikipedia. To my knowledge, Dr. MacCracken has not been invited to the Golden Trump Tower to tell President-in-four-days Trump the truth about our warming climate.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The main retort that I want to report on in this article is Dr. Happer’s assertion in 2011 that climate science is the second highest funded research subject in the government appropriations. Dr. MacCracken replied that in the 2010 budget, “of the $147.6 billion the government spends on research and development, the Department of Defense gets about $80 billion and then the Department of Health and Human Services gets $31 billion. Then come DOE and NASA (mostly for energy and space research, respectively) at about $11 billion each. … the total enacted global change research budget for all agencies combined in FY-10 was $2.178B, so about 1.5% of the Federal Government’s total research budget …”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The above just shows that Trump’s publicly announced meeting with Dr. Happer, presumably about climate science, was just to reinforce Trump’s own beliefs on the subject, not to give the subject further consideration, as he has promised.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Happer as potential White House Science Advisor?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The press has speculated that maybe Trump was interviewing Dr. Happer to be the White House science advisor. There have been questions in the science journals Nature and Science as to whether President Trump would even have a science advisor. At the same time, President Obama has just published a long paper in the journal Science, arguing the importance of a continued attack on climate change. The Science Advisor is not a cabinet position, and does not have to be appointed, nor approved by the Senate.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We might have to assume that for any scientist to be a Science Advisor for a Republican administration, with a climate denying Congress funded by fossil fuel magnates, and with the biggest such magnate Rex Tillerson being Secretary of State, and their lackeys being head of the Department of Energy and Administrator of the EPA, that the advisor has to be a climate science sceptic. However, they do not have to be one of the most public deniers of climate science, appearing in such prestigious business journals as the Wall Street Fake-Climate-Science-News Journal. Dr. Happer is undoubtedly an excellent physicist, but something is wrong if he has not studied climate science yet expounds on it, and claims that all climate scientists are frauds, or worse. I don’t think many scientists would trust him as a science advisor, since there are many other important areas of science which are political footballs right now, and accurate science advice is needed. These would include the reliability of our nuclear weapons, childhood vaccines, the continued path to clean air and clean water, the health costs of coal power, which abortion pills do not actually cause abortions, the necessity of universal health care to lessen overall medical costs, the effects of global warming on fisheries, drought, forest fires, mass migrations, etc.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Happer’s incredible exaggeration of how much the Federal Government spends on climate research is a prime example of why he should not be in any Government position.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It would be amazing to run a science based economy and country with only the advice of his cabinet, which is hand-picked to deny science, as well as Trump’s Vice President, Mike Pence.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mann bk: Singer and happer try to roll Am Phys Soc (Chron Higher Edm, w/ Cohen Exxon?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">sting: GP</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A Greenpeace undercover investigation has exposed how fossil fuel companies can secretly pay academics at leading American universities to write research that sows doubt about climate science and promotes the companies’ commercial interests.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Posing as representatives of oil and coal companies, reporters from Greenpeace UK asked academics from Princeton and Penn State to write papers promoting the benefits of CO2 and the use of coal in developing countries.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The professors agreed to write the reports and said they did not need to disclose the source of the funding.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citing industry-funded documents – including testimony to state hearings and newspaper articles – Professor Frank Clemente of Penn State said: “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Leading climate-sceptic academic, Professor William Happer, agreed to write a report for a Middle Eastern oil company on the benefits of CO2 and to allow the firm to keep the source of the funding secret. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer is due to appear this afternoon as a star witness in Senate hearings called by Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In emails to reporters he also revealed Peabody Energy paid thousands of dollars for him to testify at a separate state hearing, with the money being paid to a climate-sceptic think tank.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read the emails with Professor Frank Clemente</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read the emails with Professor Happer and the Donors Trust</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The investigation also found:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">US coal giant Peabody Energy also paid tens of thousands of dollars to an academic who produced coal-friendly research and provided testimony at state and federal climate hearings, the amount of which was never revealed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Donors Trust, an organisation that has been described as the “dark money ATM” of the US conservative movement, confirmed in a taped conversation with an undercover reporter that it could anonymously channel money from a fictional Middle Eastern oil and gas company to US climate sceptic organisations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Princeton professor William Happer laid out details of an unofficial peer review process run by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK climate sceptic think tank, and said he could ask to put an oil-funded report through a similar review process, after admitting that it would struggle to be published in an academic journal.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A recent report by the GWPF that had been through the same unofficial peer review process, was promoted as “thoroughly peer-reviewed” by influential columnistMatt Ridley - a senior figure in the organisation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The findings echo the case of Willie Soon, who was the subject of an investigation published in the New York Times earlier this year. The investigation revealed that Soon had accepted donations from fossil fuel companies and anonymous donors in return for producing climate-sceptic scientific papers. He described his studies as “deliverables” and failed to declare who paid for the research.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The revelations also follow a series of reports showing fossil fuel companies burying the truth about climate change, while funding flawed research to cast doubt on the scientific consensus.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Academics for hire</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reporters approached the academics claiming to be representatives of unnamed fossil fuel companies – one, a Middle Eastern oil and gas exploration company, the other a coal mining firm based in Indonesia – looking to commission “independent” research.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.” – Professor Frank Clemente</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The individuals approached have previously been linked to fossil fuel companies or climate sceptic organisations that have received fossil fuel funding.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Frank Clemente, a sociologist from Penn State university, was asked if he could produce a report “to counter damaging research linking coal to premature deaths (in particular the World Health Organization’s figure that 3.7 million people die per year from fossil fuel pollution)”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He said that this was within his skill set; that he could be quoted using his university job title; and that it would cost around $15,000 for an 8–10 page paper. He also explained that he charged $6,000 for writing a newspaper op-ed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When asked whether he would need to declare where the money came from, Professor Clementesaid: “There is no requirement to declare source funding in the US.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Clemente is a favourite of the coal industry and particularly Peabody Energy, which regularly uses his research as evidence of the need for an expansion of coal power in developing countries. [grn blk death scam?]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the exchange Clemente disclosed that for another report on “the Global Value of Coal” he was paid $50,000 by Peabody Energy – the sponsorship was mentioned in the small print of the paper, but the amount has not been disclosed until now.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Following the report Clemente produced an op-ed arguing against the coal divestment movement in universities, which was picked up by over 50 newspapers across the US. But as Clemente told undercover reporters: “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Clemente failed to respond to requests for comment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Investigators also approached Professor William Happer of Princeton University, who is chairman of the climate sceptic George Marshall Institute and a former Director of Energy Research at the US Department of Energy under the first President Bush where he “supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change”. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Happer, who is a physicist rather than a climatologist, told Greenpeace reporters that 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 climate sceptic campaign group, the CO2 Coalition, of which he is a board member.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer described his work on carbon dioxide as a “labor of love” and said that while other pollutants produced by burning fossil fuels are a problem, in his opinion “More CO2 will benefit the world”, adding “The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When reporters asked if it would be possible for the fossil fuel client’s role in commissioning the research to remain hidden, in order to give the work more credibility, Happer replied that: “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.’”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer also disclosed that Peabody Energy paid $8,000 in return for his testimony in a crucialMinnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. This fee was also paid to the CO2 Coalition.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I am trying get [sic] another mysterious client to donate funds to the CO2 Coalition instead of compensating me for my writing something for them.” – Professor Happer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The academics’ willingness to conceal the source of funding contrasts strongly with the ethics of journals such as Science, which states in its submission requirements that research “should be accompanied by clear disclosures from all authors of their affiliations, funding sources, or financial holdings that might raise questions about possible sources of bias”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Late last month Happer appeared at a climate sceptic summit in Texas. There he defended CO2 production saying: “Our breath is not that different from a power plant.” He went on to say, “If plants could vote, they would vote for coal”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hiding the money trail</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The investigation has also revealed a system by which oil and gas companies can anonymously fund US climate-sceptic scientists and organisations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When asked to ensure that the commissioning of the report could not be traced back to the Middle East oil and gas company, Professor Happer contacted his fellow CO2 Coalition board member, Bill O’Keefe,explaining: “I am trying get [sic] another mysterious client to donate funds to the CO2 Coalition instead of compensating me for my writing something for them.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">O’Keefe, a former Exxon lobbyist, suggested channelling it through the Donors Trust, a controversial organisation that has previously been called the “Dark Money ATM” of the US conservative movement.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The organisation has a long history of channelling funding to US climate sceptics, including controversial professor Willie Soon, and some of the most influential organisations in the US conservative movement, including Americans for Prosperity, the Heartland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When investigators asked Peter Lipsett of the Donors Trust if the Trust would accept money from an oil and gas company based in the Middle East, he said that, although the Trust would need the cash to come from a US bank account, “we can take it from a foreign body, it’s just we have to be extra cautious with that.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He added that: “I’ll double check everything and make sure I’m wording things correctly after chatting with our CFO [Chief Financial Officer], but what he’s told me before is that the preference is to have it in US dollars, and the ideal preference is to have it originate from a US source, but the US dollars is the important bit”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[sound file]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Peter Lipsett is director of growth strategies at the Donors Trust and has worked in a senior position for Charles Koch, and before that Koch Industries for almost a decade. When contacted for on the record comment, Mr Lipsett said:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We only accept donations in U.S. currency and drawn from U.S. banks. Donors Trust has never accepted secret donations from foreign donors. We have supported over 1,500 organizations representing the arts, medicine and science, public policy, education, religion, and civics. We are no more a “middle man” between donors and their causes than any other community or commercial donor-advised fund sponsoring organization”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr O’Keefe said: “As a matter of personal policy, I do not respond to requests such as yours.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Peer review</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As well as exposing how fossil fuel companies are able to anonymously commission scientific research, Greenpeace can reveal details of a so-called “peer review” process being operated by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a UK climate sceptic think tank.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sense About Science, a UK charitable trust, describes peer review as the process by which “scientists submit their research findings to a journal, which sends them out to be assessed for competence, significance and originality, by independent qualified experts who are researching and publishing work in the same field (peers).” The process usually involves varying degrees of anonymity.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“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.” – Professor Happer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Happer, who sits on the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, was asked by undercover reporters if he could put the industry funded report through the same peer review process as previous GWPF reports they claimed to have been “thoroughly peer reviewed”. Happer explained that this process had consisted of members of the Advisory Council and other selected scientists reviewing the work, rather than presenting it to an academic journal.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He added: “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.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GWPF’s “peer review” process was used for a recent GWPF report on the benefits of carbon dioxide. According to Dr Indur Goklany, the author of the report, he was initially encouraged to write it by the journalist Matt Ridley, who is also a GWPF academic advisor. That report was then promoted by Ridley, who claimed in his Times column that the paper had been “thoroughly peer reviewed”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sense About Science, which lists Ridley as a member of its Advisory Council, has warned against such review processes, saying: “sometimes organisations or individuals claim to have put their studies through peer review when, on inspection, they have only shown it to some colleagues. Such claims are usually made in the context of a campaign directed at the public or policy makers, as a way of trying to give scientific credibility to certain claims in the hope that a non-scientific audience will not know the difference.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The organisation also says that: “reporters or advocates citing these sources as peer reviewed would show themselves to be biased or uninformed”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Happer claimed that the review of the paper was “more rigorous than the peer review for most journals”. But he also told undercover reporters that he believed most members of the Academic Advisory Council had been too busy to comment on the paper:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I know that the entire scientific advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) was asked to submit comments on the first draft. I am also sure that most were too busy to respond,” he said. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Happer also noted that submitting a report on the benefits of carbon dioxide to a peer-reviewed scientific journal would be problematic.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“That might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and 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 [as] your client would also like,” he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When asked about the review process behind Dr Goklany’s report, GWPF explained that the report had gone for review to other chosen scientists beyond just those in their Advisory Council and that: “the quality of Dr Goklany’s report is self-evident to any open-minded reader.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Peabody Energy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The investigation raises further questions for coal giant Peabody Energy, which earlier this year was investigated by New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman over accusations that they violated New York laws prohibiting false and misleading conduct, in relation to misleading statements on the risks it could face from tightening climate change laws. Peabody have now agreed to change the way it reports the risks posed to investors by climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professors Clemente and Happer were both employed by Peabody to provide testimony favourable to the company in state and governmental hearings. The company paid $8,000 for Professor Happer to make the case on the social costs of carbon.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other prominent climate sceptics who provided testimony in the Minnesota hearing on behalf of Peabody included: Roy Spencer who told Greenpeace he was paid $4,000 by Peabody; Richard Tolwho said he was not paid and Richard Lindzen and Robert Mendelsohn who failed to reply to questions. Tol, Lindzen and Mendelsohn are all members of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Both Penn State and Princeton University declined to comment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The 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.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Nor did Professor Happer offer to put a report “commissioned by a fossil fuel company” through the GWPF peer review process. This is a sheer fabrication by Greenpeace.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The cack-handed attempt by Greenpeace to manufacture a scandal around Dr Goklany’s report, and to smear Professor Happer’s reputation, only points to the need for the Global Warming Policy Foundation to redouble its efforts to bring balanced, rigorous and apolitical research on climate and energy policyissues to the public’s attention, as counter to the misleading noise and activist rhetoric from groups like Greenpeace.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Journalist and GWPF Academic Advisor, Matt Ridley, did not respond to requests for comment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/exposed-academics-hire-agree-not-disclose-fossil-fuel-funding-20151208</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EXPOSED: ACADEMICS-FOR-HIRE AGREE NOT TO DISCLOSE FOSSIL FUEL FUNDING</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Last edited 8 December 2015 at 2:39pm</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Leading climate sceptic who agreed to suggestion of secret Middle East oil cash is set to speak at Ted Cruz Senate hearing today</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">8 December, 2015</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A Greenpeace undercover investigation has exposed how fossil fuel companies can secretly pay academics at leading American universities to write research that sows doubt about climate science and promotes the companies’ commercial interests.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Posing as representatives of oil and coal companies, reporters from Greenpeace UK asked academics from Princeton and Penn State to write papers promoting the benefits of CO2 and the use of coal in developing countries.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Professors agreed to write the reports and said they did not need to disclose the source of the funding.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citing industry-funded documents - including testimony to state hearings and newspaper articles - Professor Frank Clemente of Penn State said: “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The leading climate-sceptic academic, Professor William Happer, agreed to write a report for a Middle Eastern oil company and to allow the firm to keep the source of the funding secret. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer is due to appear this afternoon as a star witness in US Senate hearings called by Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In emails to reporters he also revealed Peabody energy paid thousands of dollars for him to testify at a separate state hearing, with the money going to a climate-sceptic think-tank.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The investigation also found:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">US coal giant Peabody Energy paid tens of thousands of dollars to an academic who produced coal-friendly research and provided testimony at state and federal climate hearings, the amount of which was never revealed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Donors Trust, an organisation that has been described as the “dark money ATM” of the US conservative movement, confirmed in a taped conversation with an undercover reporter that it could anonymously channel money from a Middle Eastern oil and gas company to US climate sceptic organisations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Princeton professor William Happer laid out details of an unofficial peer review process run by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a UK climate sceptic think tank, and said he could ask to put an oil funded report through a similar review process after admitting that it would struggle to be published in an academic journal.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A recent report by the GWPF that had been through the same unofficial review process, was promoted as “thoroughly peer-reviewed” by influential columnist Matt Ridley - a senior figure in the organisation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The full story and all the documents have been published onhttp://energydesk.greenpeace.org/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The findings echo the case of Willie Soon, a prominent academic exposed in a New York Times investigation as having accepted donations from fossil fuel companies and anonymous donors in return for producing climate-sceptic scientific papers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reporters approached the academics claiming to be representatives of unnamed fossil fuel companies looking to commission ‘independent’ research.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Frank Clemente, a sociologist from Penn State university, was asked if he could produce a report “to counter damaging research linking coal to premature deaths (in particular the WHO’s figure that 3.7 million people die per year from fossil fuel pollution)”. He said that this was within his skill set; that he could be quoted using his university job title; and that it would cost around $15,000 for an 8-10 page paper</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Asked whether he would need to declare the source of the money, Professor Clemente said: “There is no requirement to declare source funding in the US.” He then shared examples of a testimony and an op-ed, explaining: “Note that in none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Clemente also disclosed that for another report on “the Global Value of Coal” he was paid $50,000 by Peabody Energy - the sponsorship was mentioned in the small print of the paper, but the amount has not been disclosed until now.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The academics’ willingness to conceal the source of funding contrasts strongly with the ethics of journals such as Science, which states in its submission requirements that research “should be accompanied by clear disclosures from all authors of their affiliations, funding sources, or financial holdings that might raise questions about possible sources of bias”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The investigation has also revealed a system by which foreign oil and gas companies can anonymously fund US climate-sceptic scientists and organisations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When asked to ensure that the commissioning of the report could not be traced back to the Middle East oil and gas company, Professor Happer contacted his fellow CO2 Coalition board member, Bill O’Keefe, a former Exxon lobbyist. He suggested channelling it through the Donors Trust, a controversial organisation that has previously been called the “Dark Money ATM” of the US conservative movement.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When investigators asked Peter Lipsett of the Donors Trust, if the Trust would accept money from an oil and gas company based in the Middle East, he replied that, although the Trust would like the cash to come from a US bank account, “we can take it from a foreign body, just we have to be extra cautious with that.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Happer, who sits on the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, was also asked by undercover reporters if he could put the industry-funded report through the same peer review process as previous GWPF reports claimed to have been “thoroughly peer reviewed”. Happer explained that this process had consisted of members of the Advisory Council and other selected scientists reviewing the work, rather than presenting it to an academic journal.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He added: “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.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GWPF’s “peer review” process was used for a recent GWPF report on the benefits of carbon dioxide. According to Dr Indur Goklany, the author of the report, he was initially encouraged to write it by the journalist Matt Ridley, who is also a GWPF academic advisor. That report was then promoted by Ridley, who claimed in his Times column that the paper had been “thoroughly peer reviewed”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Commenting on the investigation, Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven said:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This investigation exposes a network of academics-for-hire and a back channel that lets fossil fuel companies secretly influence the climate debate while keeping their fingerprints off. Our research reveals that professors at prestigious universities can be sponsored by foreign fossil fuel companies to write reports that sow doubt about climate change, and that those professors will keep that funding secret from the public. The question now is very simple. Down the years, how many scientific reports that sowed public doubt on climate change were actually funded by oil, coal and gas companies? This investigation shows how they do it, now we need to know when and where they did it. It’s time for the sceptics to come clean.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He added:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has serious questions to answer. Does it condone a member of its academic council agreeing to be secretly sponsored to write a report by a group purporting to be from a Middle Eastern oil company? Have reports by senior figures in Lawson’s foundation been secretly paid for by the fossil fuel industry? Would they have agreed to Professor Happer’s suggestion that the ‘oil-funded’ report be put through a 'similar review' process to the GWPF's own ‘peer-review’ process? Does it accept that the foundation’s so-called ‘peer review’ process is flawed, given Professor Happer’s revelations about how it operated on an earlier report? And does the foundation stand by its academic advisor, Viscount Ridley, who described that earlier report as ‘thoroughly peer-reviewed’?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ENDS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Article tagged as:Climate Deniers, Climate Skeptics, Investigation, Republican Party, Ted Cruz</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lord Lawson has taken the extraordinary decision to stand by a “distinguished” academic advisor to his charity who has become embroiled in a new scandal about climate denier groups being secretly funded by oil companies. desmog</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">busted:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Greenpeace Subterfuge Tests Climate</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Research</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By JOHN SCHWARTZ DEC. 9, 2015</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A sting operation by the environmental group Greenpeace suggests that some</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">researchers who dispute mainstream scientific conclusions on climate change</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">are willing to conceal the sources of payment for their research, even if the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">money is purported to come from overseas corporations producing oil, gas and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">coal.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Over a period of several months, two Greenpeace employees posed as</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">representatives of energy companies and offered to pay prominent</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">commentators on climate change to write papers that extolled the benefits of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">coal and carbon emissions. The Greenpeace workers also asked that the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">payments not be disclosed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The commentators — a professor from Princeton University and one from</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pennsylvania State University — agreed to the offers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Disclosure of funding for scientific research has been a flash point in the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">fight over climate change, especially in the case of published scientific</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">research. The effort by Greenpeace, which has a long record of using</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">aggressive tactics to make environmental statements, was to “unravel the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">story” of industry ties to denial of climate change, said Lawrence Carter, one of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the Greenpeace employees involved in the subterfuge.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">12/9/2015 Greenpeace Subterfuge Tests Climate Research The New York Times</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/science/greenpeacesubterfugetestsclimateresearch.html?r=0 2/4</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It shows a way that fossil fuel money can get into funding these climate</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">skeptic campaign groups,” he added.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Frank Clemente, a professor emeritus of sociology at Penn State, agreed to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">write a paper on coal on behalf of a coal mining firm that he was told was</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">based in Indonesia. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">agreed to write a paper at the request of an unnamed oil and gas company in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the Middle East.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Both men acknowledged, in response to requests for comments, that the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">exchanged emails about the arrangements, which Greenpeace released on</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tuesday, were genuine. But both denied having done anything improper.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Clemente formerly served as director of an environmental policy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">center at Penn State. He said in an email response to questions: “I fully stand</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">behind every single statement I made in the emails apparently pirated by</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Greenpeace. I am very proud of my research and believe that clean coal</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">technologies are the pathway to reliable and affordable electricity, reduction of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">global energy poverty and a cleaner environment.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In an email message responding to a request for comment, Dr. Happer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">said, “I don’t think I have anything to be embarrassed about.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When asked whether he agreed that there should be full disclosure of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">foreign and industry influence on science, Dr. Happer said, “Yes, I believe in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">full disclosure.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But, he added, “I don’t think that full disclosure was the point of the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Greenpeace article at all. The aim was simply to smear their enemies.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Happer testified on Tuesday at a hearing of the Senate subcommittee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">on Space, Science and Competitiveness, whose chairman is Senator Ted Cruz,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Republican of Texas and a presidential candidate who disagrees with the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">scientific consensus on climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">12/9/2015 Greenpeace Subterfuge Tests Climate Research The New York Times</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/science/greenpeacesubterfugetestsclimateresearch.html?r=0 3/4</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Michael Halpern, a program manager at the Union of Concerned</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scientists, expressed discomfort over the scrutiny of unguarded email</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">exchanges, a controversial element of monthslong efforts by Representative</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, to challenge the work of climate scientists</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I know they can be taken out of context,” Mr. Halpern said. But, he</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">added, “It’s entirely justified to ask for information that relates to researchers’</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">funding and whether there are any strings attached.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Happer wrote in his exchanges with Greenpeace that he believed there</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">were “real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels,” including</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the oxides of nitrogen and sulfur that contribute to smog, and that he</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">supported regulation of those pollutants.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But he opposed the notion that carbon dioxide itself is a pollutant.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“More CO2 will benefit the world,” he wrote. “The only way to limit CO2</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">immoral and irrational policy.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Happer suggested to the purported funders that he not be paid</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">directly. “My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">love,” he wrote.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He recommended that money for the project be paid to a nonprofit</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">organization he helped found this year, the CO2 Coalition, which he said paid</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">him no fees or salary, but “covers occasional travel expenses.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On the question of disclosure, Dr. Happer said, “I don’t think there would</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">be any problem stating that ‘the author received no financial compensation for</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">this essay.’ ”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Happer then wrote to William O’Keefe, managing director of the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">nonprofit, and said, “I am trying to get another mysterious client to donate</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">12/9/2015 Greenpeace Subterfuge Tests Climate Research The New York Times</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/science/greenpeacesubterfugetestsclimateresearch.html?r=0 4/4</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">funds to the CO2 Coalition instead of compensating me for my writing</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">something for them.” Dr. Happer also asked Mr. O’Keefe about disclosure.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. O’Keefe responded, “We are under no obligation to identify donors,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">except to the I.R.S.,” and that list, he said, is redacted before release to the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">public</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/science/greenpeace-subterfuge-tests-climate-research.html?_r=0</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In news that’s equally shocking and not really shocking at all, Greenpeace has reported that when it posed as consultants for gas and oil companies and visited some of the top universities in the US, it caught two professors offering to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and the use of fossil fuels - for a price.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">During discussions with disguised Greenpeace reps, the academics were happy to come up with ways to obscure the proposed corporate funding in their 'research', while admitting that the content likely wouldn’t make it through the peer-review process, so they’d have to handpick the reviewers themselves.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">sci direct</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As damning as that is, US secretary of state John Kerry played down the impact of the finding at the UN climate talks in Paris. "One professor or one scientist is not going to negate peer-reviewed scientists by the thousands over many years and 97 percent of the scientists on the planet," he told the press. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, but the fact is that 30 percent of Americans are still not convinced that global climate change is real, and research published by 'skeptical' academics who may or may not be receiving money from fossil fuel companies is being cited as reasonable doubt.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Greenpeace officials posed as consultants from a Middle Eastern oil and gas company and an Indonesian coal company and contacted professors from leading US universities asking if they could commission a report outlining the benefits of using fossil fuels, and of the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Two academics were happy to bite - known climate skeptic, William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University; and Frank Clemente, a retired sociologist formerly employed by Pennsylvania State University.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“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 to 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 as your client would also like," Happer wrote in an email to what he thought was a fossil fuel rep, as Suzanne Goldenberg reports for The Guardian.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He suggested that he could pass his report on to handpicked reviewers instead. "Purists might object that the process did not qualify as a peer review. I think it would be fine to call it a peer review," he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Clemente, on the other hand, told who he thought was an Indonesian coal company representative that if he were to write a report challenging research linking coal use to increased rates of premature death around the world, he’d need about US$15,000 for an eight-to-10-page paper, and $6,000 for an opinion piece for a newspaper.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UK GRD link] that Clemente was fine with being quoted as a professor emeritus at Penn State - even though he’s now retired and no longer employed by the institution - while at the same time declaring that he’s an "independent scholar" and is not beholden to any university. He said he was under no obligation to reveal the source of his funding.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Our research reveals that professors at prestigious universities can be sponsored by foreign fossil fuel companies to write reports that sow doubt about climate change and that this sponsorship will then be kept secret," John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK, told the press. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Down the years, how many scientific reports that sowed public doubt on climate change were actually funded by oil, coal and gas companies? This investigation shows how they do it, now we need to know when and where they did it."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As we mentioned earlier, it's shocking to find confirmation that these academics are in the pockets of corporations that the vast majority of scientists agree are damaging the environment - quite possibly beyond repair - for profit. But it's also not surprising. We just have to make sure our children are educated enough in the actual science to make these kinds of tactics irrelevant in the future. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read these next:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New study links climate change denials with conspiracy theories</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indiegogo is helping climate change deniers raise money to derail Paris talks</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Science textbooks are teaching kids that climate change is debatable</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> =</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While the eyes of the world are on Paris, where nations are hammering out an agreement to do something about the reality of climate change, the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness once again held a hearing on Tuesday to debate whether climate change is for real. Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who is running for his party’s presidential nomination, convened the hearing titled “Data or dogma? Promoting open inquiry in the debate over the magnitude of human impact on Earth’s climate.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Senator Cruz opened the hearing with some ironic remarks. “This is a hearing on the science behind the claims of global warming. Now, this is the Science Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, and we’re hearing from distinguished scientists, sharing their views, their interpretations, their analysis of the data and the evidence. Now, I am the son of two mathematicians—two computer programmers and scientists—and I believe that public policy should follow the actual science, and the actual data and evidence, and not political and partisan claims that run contrary to the science and data and evidence.”Senator Cruz brought in four witnesses to testify, mostly chosen from the usual suspects that have participated in similar hearings in the past. There were two of the very small handful of climate scientists who express doubts about human responsibility for climate change—Georgia Tech professor and blogger Judith Curry and John Christyfrom the University of Alabama in Huntsville. William Happer, a retired Princeton physicist and chairman of theGeorge C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think-tank, was also invited to speak. The fourth person brought in to talk climate science was conservative radio host and columnistMark Steyn. (The last two were keynote speakers at this year’s Heartland Institute conference for climate “skeptics.”)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">John Christy, who has helped develop the UAH satellite temperature dataset favored by climate “skeptics” because it shows slower warming in portions of the troposphere than we see in surface records, made his pitch for why we just don’t know what has caused recent warming. That explanation involved highlighting his graph of tropical mid-troposphere (rather than global surface) model projections and observations that frequently appears in the comments on stories like this one—a graph other climate scientists take issue with—and claiming that emissions cuts would have a minimal impact on climate change. While claiming that research funding is biased, he proposed setting aside five to 10 percent of federal climate research funding for a “Red Team” like the CIA section tasked with outside-the-box analyses that challenge the status quo. This Red Team would “produce an assessment that expresses legitimate, alternative hypotheses” for climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Judith Curry echoed Christy’s complaints, claiming that climate science has fallen victim to “groupthink”—a conclusion she says she reached after reading the quote-mined “Climategate” e-mails between scientists in 2009. (A pile of subsequent independent investigations found no evidence of scientific misconduct.) The rest of Curry’s testimony entailed claims that the science of anthropogenic climate change is unsettled, which she has spoken and written about at length over the years.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mark Steyn’s testimony focused on his accusations that climate science is fraudulent and oppresses contrarians. Steyn’s claim to climate fame is that he’s being sued for defamation by Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, whom Steyn has repeatedly accused of fraud.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer used most of his time to argue that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are good for the planet, claiming that there is “not much dispute” that there is too little CO2 and too much oxygen for plants right now. He also seemed to like Christy’s “Red Team” idea, as he said climate science lacks an “adversarial process” to check if the science is right. (Of course, “an adversarial process” isn’t a bad description of peer review or the work of thousands of independent researchers.) “I would like to argue very strongly that we set aside some fraction of funding for climate research that is designed to be for the other side,” Happer said. That would run counter to the way funding is granted today, which is based on the hypothesis and the quality of the test rather than what the resulting conclusion is going to be.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer became a story in his own right earlier in the day, when Greenpeace released e-mails with Happer in which they had pretended to represent a foreign energy company. They asked Happer if he would produce a report extolling the virtues of CO2 but without disclosing their financial support, and Happer agreed this was something he could do. Happer explained that Peabody Coal Company had paid him $8,000 to testify at regulatory hearings in Minnesota. That fee went to the tax-exemptCO2 Coalition, which he said pays his travel expenses but no salary. Just before Tuesday’s hearing, someone from Greenpeace filmed a heated exchange with Happer asking whether he had been paid to testify. Happer seemed to indicate that the CO2 Coalition “took some of my fee” before rising out of his chair and angrily replying, “I haven’t taken a dime, you son of a bitch.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Finally, there was testimony from a witness invited by committee Democrats—former Navy Rear Admiral and current Penn State meteorology professor David Titley. Titley calmly attempted to explain the basics of climate science, highlighting the fact that nothing is ever 100 percent certain in science, yet we understand how to act on risks despite imperfect knowledge.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A question-and-answer portion followed this testimony, which at one point devolved to Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Steyn, and Curry pretty much shouting at each other. But there was also some discussion about satellite temperature data sets. (Curiously, this involved no questions for John Christy, who helps run one.) Senator Cruz is fond of claiming that one of the satellite data sets shows “no warming for 18 years” while ignoring longer-term trends and the fact that all surface temperature data sets show warming over that period.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After Senator Cruz pushed Titley to answer a question about the satellite records, which he claimed “the global warming alarmists don’t want to talk about,” Titley let loose. “Let’s talk about the satellite measurements,” Titley said. “Let’s talk about orbital decay. Let’s talk about overlapping satellite records. Let’s talk about stratospheric temperature contamination. I think Dr. Christy and Dr. [Roy] Spencer, when they’ve put this out, they have been wrong, I think, at least four consecutive times. Each time the data record has had to be adjusted upward. There have been several sign errors. So, with all due respect, sir, I don’t know which data, exactly, your staff has, whether it’s the first or second or third or fourth correction to Dr. Christy’s data. We used to have a negative trend, and then we had no trend, and now we begrudgingly have an upward trend.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To be fair, Senator Cruz was pointing to a competing data set run by Remote Sensing Systems in California that, until recently, showed an even smaller 18-year warming trend than the University of Alabama in Huntsville data set. And the latest version of that UAH data set, which is in beta, reduces that trend once again.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a curious moment, William Happer chimed in to state that these satellites measure temperatures “the same way as hospitals do today,” with devices that measure infrared radiation. In fact, these satellites measure microwave radiation, and doctors aren’t trying to simultaneously determine temperatures of various layers inside you when they pop a thermometer in your ear.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Senator Cruz also accused scientists of deliberately manipulating land surface temperature data to create the appearance of warming over the 20th Century. (Quality-control adjustments to sea surface temperature data, which obviously involve a much larger portion of the globe, actually make the overall effect a decrease in global 20th Century warming.) When asked about this, Judith Curry didn’t quite support Senator Cruz’s accusation but did comment, “To me, the error bars should really be much bigger if they’re making such a large adjustment, so we really don’t know too much about what’s going on.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In contrast to this talk of uncertainty and scientific skullduggery, Senator Gary Peters (D-Mich.) opted for some remedial physics in his opening comments. “By burning fossil fuels, humans are releasing carbon into the atmosphere that would have otherwise remained locked away. This process creates carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat that otherwise would have been radiated off into space. We know that by the law of conservation of energy, that additional heat can’t just magically disappear. Instead, it causes our planet to get warmer.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/senate-science-committee-hearing-challenges-dogma-of-climate-science/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">TPPF</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">morano bs</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“If you can see it, it’s not CO2,” Happer said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“If plants could vote, they would vote for coal,” Happer declared.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discusse</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3suwhYHQL</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ph.D, physics, Princeton (1964).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bachelor's degree in physics from University of North Carolina (1960).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Source: [1]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Background</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer is Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics and Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton University, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute and is on the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stance on Climate Change</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I, and many other scientists, think the warming will be small compared the natural fluctuations in the earth’s temperature, and that the warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind.” [2]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Key Quotes</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models.” [3]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken … Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” [4]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I am not a climatologist, but I don’t think any of the other witnesses are either. I do work in the related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals.” [3]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.” [13]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Key Deeds</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 8, 2013</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer and Harrison H. Schmitt co-author a paper published in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “In Defense of Carbon Dioxide.” [13] The authors submit that no chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the “single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.” [13] The conclusion of the article states that, “The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.” [13]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">January 27, 2012</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer signed a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that claims there is no need to panic about global warming. [6]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other “scientists” who signed the article include Claude Allègre, J. Scott Armstrong,Roger Cohen, William Kininmonth, Jan Breslow, Richard Lindzen, James McGrath, Rodney Nichols, Burt Rutan, Harrison H. Schmitt, Nir Shaviv, Edward David, Michael Kelly, Henk Tennekes, and Antonino Zichichi.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Media Transparency reported on the Op-Ed, concluding that most of the scientists have never published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. They also contacted economist William Nordhaus who had been cited by the article, and he said that the WSJ was guilty of a “Complete Mischaracterization Of My Work.” [7]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Skeptical Science also looked into the signatories, and summarize how the list “only includes four scientists who have actually published climate research in peer-reviewed journals, and only two who have published climate research in the past three decades.” Also, almost half have received funding from oil companies and big industry. [8]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 20, 2010</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Testified (PDF) before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, U.S. House of Representatives on “Climate Science in the Political Arena.” [2]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">February 25, 2009</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Testified before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee where he describes how the dangers of CO2 are “Wildly Exaggerated” and “why I and many scientists like me are not alarmed by increasing levels of CO2.” [3]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He said that the earth is in a “CO2 famine,” and more atmospheric carbon dioxide would be beneficial. [9]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Committee was formerly chaired by climate skeptic Senator James Inhofe who is also currently Senate Minority Committee Member. [10]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">November 9, 2008</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer's name appears on an ad funded by the CATO institute addressed to then President-Elect Barack Obama, responding to his statement that “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear” by saying, “With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1998 – 2008</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer is listed as a signatory to the Oregon Petition. [5]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to the Associated Press article, the Oregon petition included names that wereintentionally placed to prove the invalid name collection process. The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change skeptics as proof that there is no scientific consensus.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Affiliations </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">George C. Marshall Institute — Chairman of the Board of Directors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) — Member of “Academic Advisory Council.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Department of Energy — Director of Energy Research (1991-1993)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">MITRE — Listed on Board of Trustees.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Richard Lounsbery Foundation — Vice President and member of the Board of Directors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">*The Richard Loundsbery Foundation has funded (PDF) Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Marshall Institute's Environmental Literacy Council.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Publications</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer appears to have only published one paper on climate change, titled “Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Note that while the paper appears in Google Scholar, it was published by the George C. Marshall Institute and not by any peer-reviewed journal.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Resources</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Board of Trustees: Dr. William Happer,” MITRE Corporation. Archived March 20, 2011.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Climate Science in the Political Arena” (PDF), Statement of William Happer before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming U.S. House of Representatives (May 20, 2010).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer's testimony to the Senate Energy Committee on February 25, 2009. Republished by the Science and Public Policy Institute, April 8, 2009.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“List of Signers By Name,” Global Warming Petition Project. Accessed December, 2011.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” The Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The Journal Hires Dentists To Do Heart Surgery,” Media Transparency, January 30, 2012.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction,” Skeptical Science, January 31, 2012.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kennedy Maize. “Will Happer: We need more CO2,” Power, February 25, 2009.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Members,” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Accessed May 12, 2013.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“William Happer,” SourceWatch Profile.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“William Happer,” Wikipedia entry.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“In Defense of Carbon Dioxide,” The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2013.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Organizations: </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nrsp</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tags: </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">global warming</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">climate change</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">desmogblog</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">global warming blog</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">denial industry</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">climate change denier</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">global warming research</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">climate misinformation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Will Happer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Happer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">smogger</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">climate change skeptic</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">George Marshall Institute</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">climate denialism</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">denial database</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://ecowatch.com/2014/07/15/princeton-carbon-jews-hitler/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">wsk 16: William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy and Board member, George Marshall Institute which is a recipient of substantial funding from Exxon Mobil.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer, William</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Princeton University</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fellow APS, AAAS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Member National Academy of Sciences</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Activities: OISM1998, GMI2002, A.HOCKX, CATO2009, (organizer) APS2009, A.GATE, A.Hockey</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Organizations: CATO, (Chairman) GMI, JASON</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">People: (Singer; Canavan; Nichols) via GMI; (H.Lewis, Dyson) via JASON;.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sproull via GMI, both were on Board (at least). (other APS2009 organizers) Austin, Cohen, Gould,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">H.Lewis, Singer. See GMI for many other connections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fields: nuclear; defense, NMR</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Locations: NJ; DC; NJ-Princeton</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Employers: DOE; Princeton</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Groups: JASON; GMI</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Notes: Atomic physics; JASON 1976-90 (chair steering 1987-1990); Trustee MITRE; DOE Energy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1991-1993. (MITRE manages JASON.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer was GMI Director at least 11/07/01-onward, then became Chairman January 2006, a few months</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">into the WR effort.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/405.pdf</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">www.princeton.edu/physics/people/faculty/william-happer/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?Physics professor William Happer GS ‘64 has some tough words for scientists who believ e that carbon dioxide is</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">causing global warming. ?Th is is George Orwe ll. This is the =Ge rmans are the master race. The Je ws are the scum</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">of the earth.‘ It‘s that kind of propaganda,? Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brac kett Professor of Physics, said in an</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">interview. ? Carbon dio xide is not a pollutant. Every time you e xhale , you e xhale a ir that has 4 percent carbon</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dio xide. To say that that‘s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult …??</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?Happer said that he is alarmed by the funding that climate change scientists, such as Pacala and Socolow, receive</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">from the private sector.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?Their whole caree r depends on pushing. They have no other reason to exist. I could care less. I don‘t get a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dime one way or another from the global warming issue,? Happer noted. ?I‘m not on the payroll of oil co mpanies</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">as they are. They are funded by BP.??</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As the article mentions, GMI had received at least $715,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998 through 2006,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">and GMI has long been funded by family foundations , some of which were built on oil fortunes (A.2)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer has worded his comments carefully. His Princeton research has no obvious connection with</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">climate or energy (despite claims elsewhere about CO2 expertise), so unsurprisingly is not funded by oil</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">companies. GMI has certainly gotten money from oil-based family fortunes, and from ExxonMobil (at</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Crescendo to ClimateGate Cacophony V1.0 03/15/10</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">126</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">least) starting in 1999, and about 40% of GMI?s funding is still unidentified. Funding often flows to think</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">tanks without formally specifying the exact purpose. It may be labeled “for research and support”, or “to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">promote free enterprise.” A think tank might seek money from ExxonMobil or tobacco companies, and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">would presumably know how to spend it to be able to show accomplishments when seeking further grants.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The money-laundering maze is difficult to track, and with family foundations it is even worse. One may</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">have some idea of the original sources of wealth, but it is difficult to discover actual current investments,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">not just of the foundations, but of the people controlling them. To criticize university research grants</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">seems inconsistent while Chairing a think tank long funded via oil money to do climate anti-science.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/non-climate-scientist-cli_b_173422.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is part of article by Duke‘s Bill Chame ides, which inc ludes 7-minute video of Happer, speaking to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Senate EPW February 25, 2009. The transcript is available at:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">tedhsu.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-will-happer-and-lorne-gunter.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?1) Dr. Happer was a proponent of the Reagan administration's heavily critic ized and eventually abandoned "Star</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wars" (Strategic Defense Initiat ive) project.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2) He was appointed by George H.W. Bush as Director of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3) Soon after the Clinton administration took over in 1993, Happer was fired by Al Gore for not having any</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">urgency in dealing with ozone depletion and climate change.?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">An article in Reason says this also, albeit from a different viewpoint, and others have pointed out that</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">political appointees unsurprisingly change when administrations change, unless they have managed to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?burrow in? to a civil service position beforehand.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">www.SEPP.org/Archive/controv/controversies/happer.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">www.mitre.org/about/bot/happer.html JASON Chair of Steering Committee 1987-1990</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1999_h/990713-happer_071399.htm</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=57</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">www.climatedepot.com/a/4383/Princeton-Professor-Will-Happer-on-the-Orwellian-Movement-UN-IPCC</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">-rewrites-the-history-of-the-past-climate-of-Earth-with-the-Hockey-Stick-which-is-clearly-fraudulent</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A.Hockey</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Singer‘s 1999 ?Hot talk, Cold Science – Revised Second Edition?, published by The Independent</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Institute (TII), has a blurb from Happer:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?HOT TA LK, COLD SCIENCE ca refully revie ws the scientific, economic and policy literature on global</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">warming, and provides a welcome, reasoned assessment of the facts and uncertainties. I strongly recommend this</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">book to any citizen.?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hence, Singer and Happer were involved at least as far back as 1999.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Contrib: R99-04, D04: www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=Princeton&st=NJ&last=happer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Happer was one of the organizers of the APS2009 and surrounding advocacy efforts and then coauthored</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">an email to APS members about Climategate (A.12.3).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mashey</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div>