Locke Foundation continues to promote fossil-fuel industry's climate views

In North Carolina's public discussion on what to do about man-made global warming, the John Locke Foundation -- a think tank with headquarters in Raleigh -- has been one of the most outspoken voices challenging mainstream science on the phenomenon.

Arguing against government regulation of greenhouse gas pollution, the foundation has vigorously promoted the views of the relatively small number of global warming skeptics, including Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric science professor at MIT who has served as a paid consultant for coal and oil interests; and Fred Singer, who has served as a consultant to oil companies and whose Science and Environmental Policy Project has received funding from Exxon Mobil.

Now the Locke Foundation -- which itself has received money from fossil-fuel interests, as I documented two years ago in an article for the Independent Weekly -- has organized a North Carolina speaking tour titled "Why Al Gore is Wrong: A North Carolina Citizens' Guide to Global Warming." The featured speaker is Joel Schwartz, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute -- which itself has received at least $1.6 million from Exxon since 1998.

Here's the Conservation Council of North Carolina's take on the event from its latest Conservation Insider Bulletin, posted here with permission from editor (and Democratic Lieutenant Governor candidate) Dan Besse, who knows a thing or two about matters environmental:

Now, we're sure that Mr. Schwartz (no doctorate of any kind) is a fine fellow and an entertaining speaker. But to trot him out as your top gun scientist to confront the world's genuine scientific community on the reality of climate change? Oh, please.

Out of curiosity, we checked Mr. Schwartz's own website for his background. Without doubt, he is a professional in his field—but that field is advocacy on behalf of anti-regulatory organizations: American Enterprise Institute, Reason Public Policy Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, John Locke Foundation, etc. He has authored a host of articles for such groups critical of the case for stronger air pollution rules.

His scientific credentials to do so, or to critique the mainstream scientific community's conclusion that global warming is taking place and is human-related, are less impressive. Schwartz's online resume reveals no special training or research in climatology; no teaching positions; no academic professional posts (unless one counts a year as a research associate 6/86 to 5/87 immediately following his BA); and no involvement since 1991 in any publication which appears to include peer-reviewed scientific research.

Mr. Schwartz does have a master's degree, in Planetary Science, and his earliest post-graduate work seems to reflect that field—small parts in articles on Uranus, Neptune, and Titan. That's a fascinating field, but we suppose it's a tough gig in which to make a long-term living. In any event, he quickly turned to writing instead on topics like welfare reform, charter schools, child development—and air pollution control policies.

The point of our uncharitable critique of Mr. Schwartz's credentials is this: The Locke Foundation and its organizational peers are trying to get away with portraying a scientific squirt gun as a Niagara Falls. It's a mismatch of quality which typifies their advocacy, yet they are consistently granted equal-time quotes by major media to present their ideology as science.

They attack N.C.'s Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change, and [the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources'] Climate Action Plan Advisory Group (CAPAG), as scientifically biased because they decline to treat the Lockies' politicized "experts" as sources of real scientific information. They even have the gall to challenge DENR's contract facilitators for the CAPAG process, the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS), as a biased advocacy group.

At best for the Lockies, that would be the frog calling the tree leaf green. In contrast to the Locke standard-bearers, however, CCS can boast real and relevant scientific expertise among its team members. (For a review of the CCS staff and consultant credentials, go to www.climatestrategies.us.)

We go into this as an alert for environmental advocates: Be warned that the Locke "Global Warming Tour" will travel around our state the last week in June. We have no doubt that they will seek as much media attention as possible to their cavalcade of misinformation.

Without alert local watchdogs on behalf of the environment, this latest effort to dumb down public discourse on global warming could be mistaken as real science. So when the Locke flying circus comes to a media market near you, be sure to let your local reporters and editors know the facts about climate change (and about the Locke Foundation).

Flat-earthers around our nation have already stalled meaningful action on global warming for far too long. We can't afford to let them drag it out further in our state.