clemente, frank

=<div style=""></div><div style="">ref mma</div><div style="">
</div><div style="">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 <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2011/09/02/here-comes-the-sun-and-there-goes-anthropogenic-warmism-the-truth-about-global-warming/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">has</a> <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/03/american-physical-society-statement-on-climate-change-no-longer-incontrovertible-but-still-unacceptable/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">frequently</a> <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/10/24/science-behind-man-made-global-warming-not-valid-says-weather-channel-founder/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">cited</a> Princeton Emeritus Professor William Happer to promote the supposed "benefits" of climate-warming carbon pollution and argue against a "<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/22/10-unintended-consequences-of-the-jihad-against-co2/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">war on CO2</a>" --  including <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/04/carbon-dioxide-not-enemy/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">just days before</a> the Greenpeace investigation was released. And now that Greenpeace has exposed Happer's ethically dubious actions, Breitbart News is <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/08/patrick-moore-reports-enemy-state-greenpeace-fbi/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">defending</a> Happer's behavior as "morally and scientifically unimpeachable."On December 8, Greenpeace released the results of its <a href="http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">investigation</a>, 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." 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 <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410/Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">email exchange</a> 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 <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4589359.ece" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">column</a> 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 <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/your-complete-guide-to-the-climate-debate-1448656890" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">frequently</a> <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-green-scare-problem-1439506952" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">writes</a> <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/fossil-fuels-will-save-the-world-really-1426282420" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">op-eds</a> <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">published</a> <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303725404579460973643962840" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">by</a> 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."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:<ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 5px;">A June 3, 2015 Breitbart <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/03/american-physical-society-statement-on-climate-change-no-longer-incontrovertible-but-still-unacceptable/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-weight: bold !important;">article</a> 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.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 5px;">A January 22, 2015 Breitbart <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/22/10-unintended-consequences-of-the-jihad-against-co2/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-weight: bold !important;">article</a> 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."</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 5px;">An October 24, 2014 Breitbart <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/10/24/science-behind-man-made-global-warming-not-valid-says-weather-channel-founder/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">article</a> 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."</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 5px;">A September 2, 2011 Breitbart <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2011/09/02/here-comes-the-sun-and-there-goes-anthropogenic-warmism-the-truth-about-global-warming/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-weight: bold !important;">article</a> quoted Happer as follows: "Disagreeing with [the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is like going to Saudi Arabia and criticizing Muhammad."</li></ul>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 "<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/04/carbon-dioxide-not-enemy/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy</a>." 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."After Greenpeace released its investigation, Breitbart News' James Delingpole rushed to Happer's defense with a December 8 <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/08/patrick-moore-reports-enemy-state-greenpeace-fbi/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">article</a>, 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."It's true that Happer has <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/15/cnbcs-climate-expert-demonization-of-carbon-dio/200107" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">a long track record</a> of <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2013/06/18/report-cnbcs-climate-denial-is-bad-for-business/194483" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">advocating</a> for the purported "benefits" of carbon pollution, and it's also true that he <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410/Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">requested</a> 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 <a href="http://co2coalition.org/about/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">earlier this year</a>. 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?"This is where Happer's conduct is far from "unimpeachable," as Breitbart News claimed.The Greenpeace staffer posing as a representative of the Middle Eastern oil company told Happer <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410/Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">over email</a> 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 <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/08/how-the-merchants-of-doubt-push-climate-denial/202792" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">William O'Keefe</a>, another member of the <a href="http://co2coalition.org/about/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">Board of Directors</a> of the CO2 Coalition and former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the <a href="http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/william_o%E2%80%99keefe.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">American Petroleum Institute</a>. O'Keefe replied by suggesting that the oil company funnel the funds through the Donors Trust, which has been <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/donors-trust-donor-capital-fund-dark-money-koch-bradley-devos" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">dubbed</a> the "dark-money ATM" of the conservative movement:<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 25px 30px 10px; margin: 20px 20px 25px; border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); background: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-shadow: rgb(204, 204, 204) 0px 6px 0px -4px; clear: both; float: left; width: 612.75px;">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.</blockquote>Happer then forwarded O'Keefe's response to the undercover Greenpeace employee. As Greenpeace <a href="http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">noted</a>, 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."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 <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/26/national-black-chamber-of-commerce-joins-oil-in/204153" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">but</a> <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/25/the-koch-brothers-campaign-against-epa-climate/203041" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">also</a> to <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/13/a-web-of-climate-deception-the-beacon-hill-inst/203263" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">op-eds</a> and other media coverage about them. Indeed, the other university professor that Greenpeace approached, Penn State's Frank Clemente, listed <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2642398/Email-Chain-Frank-Clemente.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">over email</a> 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."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 <a href="http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">documented</a>, 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 <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410/Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">wrote</a> 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 <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">Global Warming Policy Foundation</a>, 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."The Global Warming Policy Foundation recently conducted a similar review of another <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">pro-carbon pollution paper</a>, with Ridley -- who used to be a <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/29/meet-the-wall-street-journal-columnist-dismissi/190989http:/thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/10/3565758/matt-ridley-error-riddled-wall-street-journal/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">regular</a> <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/29/meet-the-wall-street-journal-columnist-dismissi/190989http:/thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/10/3565758/matt-ridley-error-riddled-wall-street-journal/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">columnist</a> for The Wall Street Journal -- <a href="http://www.desmog.uk/2015/12/11/matt-ridley-caught-dollars-denial-scandal" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">deceptively alleging</a> in the <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4589359.ece" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">London Times</a> that the paper had been "thoroughly peer reviewed."</div><div style=""></div>William Happer. In December, a bombshell [19] Greenpeace sting suggested that two academics from prominent universities could be bought by fossil fuel companies. The first was Happer, a Princeton University professor and prominent climate change skeptic [20]. The physicist, who is not a climatologist, was approached by Greenpeace activists posing as consultants of a Beirut-based energy company to author a paper on “the benefits of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.”Emails show [21] that Happer wanted $250 an hour for his work and asked that his fee be paid to the climate-doubting group CO2 Coalition, where he’s a board member. Happer also disclosed in the emails that Peabody Energy donated $8,000 to the CO2 Coalition for testimony in a Minnesota hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide.The Greenpeace investigation was released hours before Happer testified at Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Tex.) bizarre Senate hearing [22] disputing climate change. Right before his testimony, when a Greenpeace researcher confronted Happer about how much money he received from Peabody, Happer barked, “You son of a bitch, I haven’t taken a dime!”Happer has not disputed [23] the veracity of the emails but refused to comment about the operation.Watch here:. Frank Clemente. The professor emeritus of sociology at Penn State University was the second professor implicated by the Greenpeace operation. This time, Greenpeace activists posed as Indonesian coal mining representatives and approached Clemente to write a report before the Paris Climate talks “to counter damaging research on linking coal to premature deaths,” according to published emails [28]. Clemente, who has previously argued against [29] coal divestment among educational institutions, agreed and requested $15,000 for an 8- to 10-page report and emphasized he would not have to disclose his sponsor.“There is no requirement to declare source funding in the US,” Clemente wrote in an email. “My research and writing has been supported by government agencies, trade associations, the university and private companies and all has been published under the rubric of me as an independent scholar—which I am.”In response, Clemente told [30] the Australian Broadcasting Corporation he was an independent consultant and not on the Penn State payroll during the sting. “I fully stand behind every single statement I made,” he said.6. Bruce Chassy. Like Soon, the University of Illinois professor emeritus has similarly come under fire for his close ties to the controversial agrichemical industry. U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit watchdog group, obtained a jaw-dropping cache of emails through FOIA requests unveiling how Monsanto and its allies not only donated money to professors but also enlisted them to do PR, lobbying and regulatory work for the agrichemical industry.On September 2015, a stunning exposé from the New York Times [31] on the FOIA emails described how Chassy received money from Monsanto and collaborated with [32] the agrichemical industry’s lobbying of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reject a proposal that would tighten the regulations on pesticide-resistant seeds.Monsanto’s Eric Sachs, who leads the company’s scientific outreach, emailed [33] Chassy to set up Academics Review [34], a nonprofit aimed at countering critics of GMOs. “The key” to Academics Review’s success will be “keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the credibility of the information,” 
Sachs wrote.This past March, a WBEZ [35] investigation by Monica Eng uncovered that Monsanto gave Chassy more than $57,000 in two years to help promote, defend and deregulate GMOs through the lobbying of federal officials. Monsanto also made $140,000 in “biotech research and outreach” payments through the University of Illinois Foundation between 2006 and June 2012.Chassy has harshly criticized [36] the U.S. Right to Know campaign.7. Kevin Folta. The professor and chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida has been labeled a “Monsanto shill” by critics after the FOIA emails indicated frequent collaboration with the world’s largest seed company. The plant scientist was the center of the 2015 New York Times exposé [31] by Eric Lipton, who writes:Dr. Folta, the emails show, soon became part of an inner circle of industry consultants, lobbyists and executives who devised strategy on how to block state efforts to mandate G.M.O. labeling and, most recently, on how to get Congress to pass legislation that would pre-empt any state from taking such a step.“I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like,” Folta wrote [37] in an October 2014 email to a Monsanto executive.Folta, a Buzzfeed [38] profile noted, corresponded with global public relations firm Ketchum, which represents the powerful Council for Biotechnology Information, to write an Orlando Sentinel op-ed [39], in which he claims "profiting authors, celebrity chefs and eco-terrorists" are attempting "to arrest the pace of scientific progress" in regard to GMOs. (Ketchum has a notorious reputation: Stacy Malkan, the co-director of U.S. Right to Know,notes [40] that the firm "remains a key player in PR efforts to dampen demand for organic foods, spinning messages that tell consumers organics are over-priced and over-hyped... [and] runs the GMO Answers website, funded by Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and BASF.")In August 2014, Monsanto gave Folta an unrestricted $25,000 grant through the university’s agricultural biotechnology communication program. The university tried returning the money to Monsanto, but the company refused. Folta, citing personal threats, later decided to donate the money [41] to a campus food bank. Folta wrote in a recent blog post [42] that he is neither pro- nor anti-GMO but has an “overwhelmingly positive” opinion of the technology.8. David Shaw. According to the New York Times piece, Monsanto provided at least $880,000 in grants to Mississippi State University’s vice president for research and economic development.The FOIA emails show [43] that Shaw was approached by both Monsanto and Dow Chemical to submit comments to the USDA to approve the former’s Roundup Ready 2 Xtend GMO soybeans and the latter’s Enlist weedkiller. Dow executive Larry Walton sent a June 2015 email [44] to Shaw requesting his support for Enlist. In the message, Walton noted that the Mississippi Agricultural Industry Council, where Walton is president, has provided scholarship funds to Mississippi State students. Shaw agreed to the two requests.Shaw, Folta and seven other professors were also included in an August 2013 group email [45] from Sachs, the Monsanto outreach executive. Sachs asks the group to lend their academic gravitas on a series of articles touting the benefits of GMOs aimed at the general public. The Monsanto exec even assigned them topics and provided talking points and added that company-hired PR firms would plug the finished articles.“The key to success is participation by all of you—recognized leaders with the knowledge, reputation and communication experience needed to communicate authoritatively with the target groups,” the email stated.Shaw and Cornell entomologist and professor Anthony Shelton were tasked with the topic, “sustainable crop systems” and the professors complied. The final co-authored article, “Green Genes: Sustainability Advantages of Herbicide Tolerant and Insect Resistant Crops,” was published [46] by the Genetic Literacy Project, an organization critics [47] have labeled an agrichemical industry front group.9. Calestous Juma. The Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government professor was also part of the Sachs group email. Juma, who is enthusiastically pro-GMO [48], wrote a December 2014 piece [49] titled, “Global Risks of Rejecting Agricultural Biotechnology,” a topic—and a similar headline—Sachs suggested. The piece was also published by the Genetic Literacy Project.   
Citing the FOIA emails, the Boston Globe [50] described how Monsanto connected Juma with a marketing company to promote his paper “as part of Monsanto’s strategy to win over the public and lawmakers.” The international development specialist defended his piece, telling the Boston Globe he was not paid by Monsanto and merely pulled material from his previously published book on the topic.“It’s not that I was trying to hide anything,” Juma said.10. James O. Hill. The University of Colorado professor of pediatrics and medicine was the former [51] president of the Global Energy Balance Network, a nonprofit that promoted itself as a obesity research nonprofit. Exposés from the Associated Press [52] and the New York Times [53] in 2015, however, revealed that Coca-Cola was funding research that claims lack of exercise, not sugary soda, is to blame for the global obesity epidemic. According to the Associated Press, since 2010, the beverage giant gave $1 million to the University of Colorado School of Medicine, and since 2010, $550,000 to Hill.While the group denied its research was influenced by Coke, Hill wrote in an email to a top Coke executive, "I want to help your company avoid the image of being a problem in people's' lives and back to being a company that brings important and fun things to them.” The network disbanded in late 2015, citing [54] “resource limitations.”11. Steven N. Blair. As the New York Times described in its 2015 report, the University of South Carolina public health professor—“whose research over the past 25 years has formed much of the basis of federal guidelines on physical activity”—was the vice president of the Global Energy Balance Network. The University of South Carolina also received, and kept $500,000 from Coke.In a video launching the Global Energy Balance Network, Blair said, “Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is, ‘Oh they’re eating too much, eating too much, eating too much’—blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks and so on.  And there’s really virtually no compelling evidence that that, in fact, is the cause.”But as AlterNet's Reynard Loki reported [55], the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans [56], a joint report of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services found that "sugary beverages are extremely popular, with soda, energy drinks and sports drinks making up the fourth highest source of calories among Americans overall—and the third highest source for children and adolescents up to the age of 18."vid12. Gregory A. Hand. The former founding dean and professor of epidemiology at West Virginia University School of Public Health also helped found the Global Energy Balance Network. Hand, along with professors Hill and Blair, announcing the group’s formation in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. According to the New York Times, Coca-Cola gave Hand $806,500 in 2011 for a study and another $507,000 in 2014 to establish the group. Hand’s CV [57] from August 2015 boasts funding from the Coca-Cola Company.Hand’s colleague, Walter Willett, chair of the Nutrition Department at the Harvard School of Public Health likened the actions of the Global Energy Balance Network to the tobacco industry’s campaign to downplay the health risks of smoking. “You can always buy somebody, it seems,” Willett told the Charleston Gazette-Mail [58]. “And it’s really unfortunate that some members of our academic community essentially go on the payroll of Coca-Cola, either directly or indirectly.”News emerged this month that Hand has been forced out as dean. He has been demoted to a role “in developing partnerships that enhance the mission and work of health sciences at WVU,” the school is quoted as saying, according to Corporate Crime Reporter [59].13. Peter Phillips. The University of Saskatchewan public policy professor was also asked by Monsanto's Eric Sachs to throw his weight behind a pro-GMO piece.The finished piece, “Economic Consequences of Regulations of GM Crops,” closely mirrored the subject matter of “burdensome” regulations that stifle biotechnology, something that Sachs had pitched. The paper was again published [60] on the Genetic Literacy Project website in December and did not disclose Monsanto’s meddling.  According to the Saskatoon StarPhoenix [61], “Phillips said there was no need to declare his connections because he was not paid and Monsanto did not ask him to alter his research.”However, Gary Ruskin, co-director for U.S Right to Know which accessed the emails, disagrees.“Monsanto says jump and these scientists said, how high? This is not how publicly funded scientists should behave,” Ruskin told the publication, adding that Americans should trust top university scientists to disclose any conflict of interest.Lorraine Chow is a freelance writer and reporter based in South Carolina.AN ==http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/exposed-academics-hire-agree-not-disclose-fossil-fuel-funding-20151208EXPOSED: ACADEMICS-FOR-HIRE AGREE NOT TO DISCLOSE FOSSIL FUEL FUNDINGLast edited 8 December 2015 at 2:39pmLeading climate sceptic who agreed to suggestion of secret Middle East oil cash is set to speak at Ted Cruz Senate hearing today8 December, 2015