Eckhart reprinted most this e-mail on ACORE’s blog, in defense of his more recent e-mail to Lewis. Somewhat dubiously, however, he reprinted only the parts where he is chastising Smith and omitted those where he is threatening him. Lewis, who did not find Eckhart’s “apology” to be very apologetic, posted the entire e-mail to Smith on the blog Openmarket.org. Lewis also denied that he ever admitted that he did not believe his own arguments or that they were just “tactics,” and he shames Eckhart’s behavior. “After all,” Lewis wrote on the blog, “if a right-winger carried on this way, the liberal media would say he was trying to stifle debate and suppress speech.”
Lewis has a point.
I admire Eckhart’s dogged pursuit of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has continuously assailed the international scientific consensus that humans are changing the climate to their own detriment. Its “experts,” like Lewis (who has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard), have argued against the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and repeatedly cast climate science as “junk science” during the Bush administration. Most of the institute’s opinions are rooted in the extremely contestable idea that things like emissions reductions will cripple our economy. The more that can be done to rebut the institute’s ideas the better.
But statistically, Smith and Lewis are well within their right to argue that the threat of climate change, and even warming itself, may not amount to much. It’s not a great argument, but it’s not a crime. The closest Eckhart comes to making that case is his contention that the institute might not deserve its tax-exempt status, but that too is a bit shaky. The organization recently weathered criticism of the funding it received from ExxonMobil, and it claims to have severed that tie. And Eckhart is not alleging that the institute has meddled with any peer-reviewed science reports. Without that, or proof of some other such grievance, threatening to destroy a colleague’s career or have another’s honor society key revoked is unbecoming of the president of such a laudable organization.
Unfortunately, Eckhart’s e-mails have already brought the attack dogs to ACORE’s door.
Last Friday, Senator Inhofe brought up Eckhart’s correspondence before a hearing of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe confronted Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, with the e-mails. The EPA, like many other government agencies and private companies, is a dues-paying member of ACORE, and Inhofe wanted to know if Johnson thought it “appropriate to be a part of an organization that is headed up by a person who makes this statement.” Johnson said he was unaware of Eckhart’s email, but that he would investigate the matter. After the hearing Inhofe announced that he would be sending letters to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, and EPA, urging them to “reconsider their membership in ACORE.”
Unfortunately, this information has not drifted out of press releases and the blogosphere. The story may not be front-page news, but it deserves a lot more attention from the mainstream, national press. The Competitive Enterprise Institute and ACORE are influential players in the massive and complex debate over what, if anything, to do about manmade climate change. When their presidents have a quarrel that draws Congressional attention it’s newsworthy. Eckhart wrote a couple incredibly ill advised e-mails and followed up with a feeble explanation/apology that sounded a lot like, “That guy started it! Kick him out of the playground.” But now ACORE-which abides (its president’s e-mails notwithstanding) by the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s own cherished commitment to free enterprise-is being scrutinized by the fiercest climate skeptic in the Senate. If Inhofe succeeds, ACORE’s budget, a staple for renewable fuels development, could suffer. It is time for the media to get in there and scrutinize Eckhart’s actions as well as the unjustified justice of penalizing ACORE for them.