I would find it much more damning if they found a professor that would change their position for money, rather than finding people that will accept money to forward a position they think is correct.
>The emails and recordings also outline how Happer ran a sham peer-review process through the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a prominent U.K.-based climate skepticist think thank. Happer admits that his papers would not likely be published through typical the academic peer review process. “I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”
The headlines are actually somewhat mundane compared to the substance. This is the reverse of the Planned Parenthood tapes.
I really don't think submitting papers to similarly minded groups in the name of "peer review" is an uncommon occurrence on any side of the climate change debate -- or any other debate for that matter.
Yes it is. It's not just uncommon, it's simply unacceptable in regular scientific research. Don't believe me, here's Prof. Happer's own words:
Verbatim from William Happer's email:
"For example, Golkany knew the names of the reviews he received, but for a journal, the peer reviewers would normally be anonymous.
.
.
Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review"
He knows exactly what he's doing is wrong and why. He's deliberately engaging in a a sleight of hand in order to deceive the casual reader/listener with the words "peer review".