William Happer, an
eminent Princeton University professor, is tipped to become Donald
Trump’s science adviser. Happer is a respected scientist in the
academic community, but many are concerned about his possible
appointment because of his stance on climate change. Happer argues
that the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) in climate change has been
largely exaggerated and argues that more CO2 is good for plant life
and the planet
Trump's
likely science adviser calls climate scientists 'glassy-eyed cult'
William
Happer, frontrunner for job of providing mainstream scientific
opinion to officials, backs crackdown on federal scientists’
freedom to speak out
Hannah Devlin
Science correspondent
@hannahdev
Wednesday 15
February 2017 13.13 GMT
The man tipped as
frontrunner for the role of science adviser to Donald Trump has
described climate scientists as “a glassy-eyed cult” in the
throes of a form of collective madness.
William Happer, an
eminent physicist at Princeton University, met Trump last month to
discuss the post and says that if he were offered the job he would
take it. Happer is highly regarded in the academic community, but
many would view his appointment as a further blow to the prospects of
concerted international action on climate change.
“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.”
Trump has previously
described global warming as “very expensive … bullshit” and has
signalled a continued hardline stance since taking power. He has
nominated the former Texas governor Rick Perry, a staunch climate
sceptic, as secretary of energy and hopes to put the Environment
Protection Agency (EPA) under the leadership of Scott Pruitt, the
Oklahoma attorney general, who has been one of the agency’s most
hostile critics.
John Holdren, Barack
Obama’s science adviser, said Happer’s outspoken opinions would
be a “substantial handicap” for a job that has traditionally
involved delivering mainstream scientific opinion to the heart of
policymaking.
“Every national
academy of science agrees that the science is solid, that climate
change is real,” he said. “To call this a cult is absurd and …
an insult to the people who have done this work.”
Happer also supports
a controversial crackdown on the freedom of federal agency scientists
to speak out about their findings, arguing that mixed messages on
issues such as whether butter or margarine is healthier, have led to
people disregarding all public health information.
“So many people
are fed up of listening to the government lie to them about margarine
and climate change that when something is actually true and
beneficial they don’t listen,” he said, citing childhood vaccines
as an example. “The government should have a reputation of being
completely reliable about facts – real facts.”
Happer dismissed
concerns that Trump is “anti-science”, saying he had a positive
impression of the president during their January meeting. “He asked
good questions – he was very attentive, actually,” he said.
Climate change was
mentioned but was not the main focus of discussions, according to
Happer, who revealed that Trump had expressed support for solar
energy in areas like Arizona “where it makes sense”.
“His comments were
that of a technically literate person,” he said. “He wasn’t
ideologically opposed to renewables; he wasn’t ideologically in
favour of them either.”
Unlike many of his
scientific peers, Happer is in favour of contentious legislation
aimed at reining in the ability of federal agency staff to hold press
conferences, give television interviews and promote their findings on
official websites.
The “Secret
Science Reform Bill”, which is being pushed by the Texas Republican
Lamar Smith, chairman of the House science, space and technology
Committee, would require federal agencies to publish all the raw data
underpinning any proposed regulations and for new findings to be
scrutinised extensively by outside experts before being announced.
However, critics view the bill as an attempt to strip federal
agencies of autonomy and reduce their regulatory powers.
“There is this
special need for government science to be especially clean and
without fault,” said Happer. “It’s OK to have press
conferences, but before you do that you should have the findings
carefully vetted.”
When asked for
examples of where the current vetting process has failed, Happer
cited a recent controversy surrounding a high-profile paper published
by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa)
scientists showing that global surface temperatures had risen again
after temporarily levelling off.
Earlier this month,
a retired Noaa scientist, Robert Bates, accused his former colleagues
of rushing out the paper ahead of the UN conference, prioritising
political impact over scientific rigour – although Bates later
clarified that he had an issue with timing and transparency rather
than “tampering with data”.
“This
disappearance of the hiatus in global warming, which was trotted out
just before the [UN] Paris conference … it was clearly just a
political fanfare,” said Happer. “We shouldn’t be doing that.
They were fiddling with the temperature records to make the hiatus go
away.”
Happer argues that
climate monitoring, such as the collection of CO2 and atmospheric
temperature data, is valuable and should be continued. However, he
claims that the overall threat posed by global warming has been
overplayed by scientists swayed by a political agenda and
power-hungry civil servants.
“There’s a huge
amount of money that we spend on saving the planet,” he said. “If
it turns out that the planet doesn’t need saving as much as we
thought, well, there are other ways you could spend the money.
“When you talk
about fossil fuel companies being motivated, well, there’s nobody
more motivated than the people working for the federal government,”
he added. “You can’t rise in the American bureaucracy without
some threat to address.”
However, Holdren
said that the evidence that human activity is causing global warming
– a view supported by 97% of active climate researchers – is
compelling. “It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are
causing climate change,” he added.
Happer said he began
to question the emerging consensus view on climate change while
working as director of research at the Department of Energy as part
of the George W Bush administration. Climate scientists would
“grudgingly” present their work to administrators, he claims,
while those in other fields would share their results with
enthusiasm. “I would ask questions but they were evasive and
wouldn’t answer,” he said. “This experience really soured me on
the community. I started reading up and I realised why they weren’t
answering the questions: because they didn’t have good answers. It
was really at that point that I began to get seriously worried about
climate as a science.”
Concerns about the
Trump administration’s apparent disregard for mainstream scientific
thinking on climate change has triggered a wave of activism,
including plans for a science march in various cities.
However, Happer said
that the public, who may view scientists as part of a privileged
elite, may be less sympathetic.
“There’s a
potential downside [to the march] of them being seen as a greedy
bunch of spoiled people,” he said. “I don’t think they’re
that way myself, but it could be easily twisted into that kind of
narrative.”
David Gelernter, a
Yale computer scientist who has also questioned the reality of
manmade climate change, is also reported to be in the running for the
role of science adviser, but was not available for interview.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário