It took me a moment to process this, and he took another long sip of his wine. Finally, I spoke. “While I am a curious bystander, my research interests are not aligned with this topic. Frankly, I’d be a bit out of my depth.”
Eric opened his jacket and pulled the conference brochure from an inner pocket. He searched it for the description of my presentation. Once he found it, he tapped it with his finger.
“It says here you’re speaking on the impact solar variations have on global climate fluctuations.”
“My focus will be primarily on total solar irradiance,” I said uneasily.
Eric slipped the brochure back into his pocket. “Perfect. This aligns with my client’s interests.”
“I can’t imagine how.”
“Dr. Pavano, my client is proposing an opportunity that would allow you to reenter academia, regain control of your career, and do meaningful research with the kind of financial support most scientists don’t even dare to dream about.”
Eric went on to tell me that his client was prepared to endow a professorship at a university to which he already had strong ties. This university would provide me with generous research grants for more study into the subjects about which we’d spoken. I quickly realized this would require a substantial shift in my current research interests.
As we spoke, I thought about Annie lying on the bed upstairs in our stateroom, watching Survivor, so grateful for the fruit basket that she hadn’t taken off the yellow cellophane. The decision was not difficult.
*
My cruise ship lecture was so well received that within a week of returning home, I had six invitations to present the same talk at various conferences around the country. The fees offered were substantial. Until I’d embarked upon the cruise, I had had no idea that a parallel scientific world existed, one separated from mainstream science by a matter of degrees. It was a place where science was expertly mimicked and, at rare moments, even practiced. I was entering the fold. And I found the inhabitants of this world to be, without exception, kind, welcoming, in earnest, and thrilled to find a “real scientist” in their midst.
Eric Falleri kept in touch regularly, and by April 2002, although I was not affiliated with any accredited university, I was a fairly well established “climate change skeptic.” In this parallel universe, “expertise” came quickly. Although some bloggers who had taken notice of my work referred to me as a “denialist,” my reputation was bolstered by the fact that I did not entertain the conspiracy theories that had gripped some corners of this world—charges of scientific and criminal misconduct resulting in a general consensus that climate change existed and was caused by humans.
I made one misstep at this time, which was agreeing to counsel a young biblical archaeologist on a paper about the structural stability of Noah’s ark. I considered it an interesting puzzle—how does one research the buoyancy and bilge radius of an imaginary seafaring vessel? To my dismay, the student added my name to the subsequent research paper. Although Eric was vexed, he felt that the journal in which it appeared was so obscure that it wouldn’t pose any problems.
In late May, I was booked on a flight to Washington for a meeting with the Client, whom by this point I had come to consider a proper noun. The meeting was held in the Royal Suite at the Washington, D.C., Four Seasons, at a long dining table and over an opulent meal. Falleri was there, but the easy insouciance that I had come to consider his trademark was nowhere to be found. Terse now, he asked for the confidentiality agreement he’d sent me the week before the meeting. Once I’d produced it, he grimly escorted me to a seat on the left side of the table.
Shortly after, a group of men emerged from an adjoining room. There was little to distinguish one from the other. They were of similar age—between fifty and sixty—and wore suits of a similar cut and of similar quality. Three were balding, two had full heads of silver hair. It would take a keener eye than mine to determine which one, upon a glance, was the Client. My only indications were the facts that he entered the room a full minute after everyone else and that he walked directly to the seat at the head of the table. His firm handshake lasted only the length of a breath, as if the ritual were inherently distasteful to him.
Throughout the first course, a Waldorf salad, the Client remained silent while the others spoke about trivial matters—golf scores, recent vacations, the Preakness. He finished his salad with astonishing celerity. One by one, the others at the table noticed and set their forks down, too.
In the break between the main course—Maine lobster thermidor—and coffee, the Client finally turned his eyes toward me. The table conversation dissipated at once.
“Dr. Pavano, we meet at a time of great change,” the Client said. He looked at me steadily, waiting, as if I might contradict him. I decided to respond with “Indeed.” This met with his approval, and he continued, “I trust Eric has given you an idea of where our interests lie.” He gestured to the other men at the table without looking at them. “These men represent some of the largest energy companies in the world. We are here together tonight because we have agreed that the defining issue of the coming decades, not just in our industry, but also in federal and global policy, will be climate change. We are aware that the majority of the science emerging from this area of study indicates that the earth is warming, and that it’s warming due to carbon dioxide emissions. The responsibility for this warming, and its attendant repercussions, will be laid at our feet.” He paused here to take a drink from his ice water. “We would like to approach this issue proactively. One way we can do this is by directing our resources toward sound science that looks dispassionately at the data, which our own company scientists tell us do not support the idea of man-made climate change. Unfortunately, they are unable to place any research papers in reputable journals, so we are losing control of the messaging. This issue has become politically charged. And that’s why you’re here with us tonight.”
To his right, one of the balding men gathered that the Client was finished for now and that he was expected to speak.
“Dr. Pavano,” he said, “I represent Americans for Responsible Petroleum, a coalition of oil and energy companies. We are deeply concerned about the science coming out of the federal research programs, which is indicating, overwhelmingly, that climate change is verifiable fact and that its causes can be connected directly to our industries.”