Myron Ebell

Credentials

Background

Myron Ebell is the former Director of Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)³ and has been director of Freedom Action, a “web-based grassroots activist organization loosely affiliated with CEI.” He is also the chair of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group of organizations “that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies.”⁴ Ebell announced his retirement from his role at CEI in August 2023.⁵

Ebell told E&E News he was fully retiring at the end of January, claiming his energy level had gone down “partly due to getting older and partly due to side effects from the [Covid-19] vaccines.” E&E News noted that “Health and science authorities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, say serious adverse side effects from the vaccines are extremely rare.”⁶

According to an article in Vanity Fair, “Though he likes to bash scientists for working outside their degreed fields, Ebell, it turns out, isn’t a scientist at all. He majored in philosophy at the University of California in San Diego, then studied political theory at the London School of Economics and history at Cambridge.”⁷

In March 2010, the Financial Times called Mr. Ebell “one of America’s most prominent climate-change skeptics.” In July 2009, the Business Insider’s Green Sheet named him third in its list of the Ten Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics and commented that “Myron Ebell may be enemy #1 to the current climate change community.” The nonprofit Clean Air Trust named Ebell its “clean air villain of the month” in 2001, citing his “ferocious lobbying charge to persuade President Bush to reverse his campaign pledge to control electric utility emissions of carbon dioxide.”⁸ ⁹

A biography submitted when Ebell testified before Congress celebrates his reputation with environmental groups, noting he and three of his CEI colleagues were included in “A Field Guide to Climate Criminals” distributed at the UN climate meeting in Montreal in December 2005. Ebell was also listed as one of the six top “Misleaders” by Rolling Stone magazine in a 2005 issue.¹⁰

In 1998, Ebell was a member of the “Global Climate Science Communications Team” (GCSCT) assembled by the American Petroleum Institute (API), which worked on a plan to convince the public that climate change was uncertain. According to the plan “Victory will be achieved when average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’.”¹¹

Donald Trump’s EPA Transition Team

In September of 2016, Myron Ebell was selected to lead Donald Trump’s U.S. EPA transition team,¹² two sources told Scientific American.¹³

“Ebell’s views appear to square with Trump’s when it comes to EPA’s agenda. Trump has called global warming ‘bullshit’ and he has said he would ‘cancel’ the Paris global warming accord and roll back President Obama’s executive actions on climate change.”¹⁴

“It’s not lost on many observers, liberal and conservative alike, that Ebell is not a scientist and has never worked for the agency whose environmental mission he has attacked for years,” E&E News’s ClimateWire notes. Describing Ebell’s take on climate policy, one Republican called him “very Orwellian […] If there’s a Republican who wants to be constructive [on climate policy], they’re an enemy.”¹⁵

Speaking at a London press conference, attended by DeSmog UK‘s Mat Hope, Ebell admitted that he had never actually spoken to Trump, and was recruited to the transition team by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.¹⁶

In March, 2016, Trump promised to make major budget cuts to the EPA and to “get rid of [EPA] in almost every form. We are going to have little tidbits left but we are going to take a tremendous amount out.”¹⁷

DeSmog noted that earlier in August, climate change denier Kathleen Hartnett-White, director of the energy and environment project at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) joined Trump’s “Economic Advisory team.”¹⁸ A post-election chart provided to Politico confirmed that Ebell would be managing Trump’s EPA transition team.¹⁹

The Huffington Post reported on “11 Reasons Why Trump’s Climate-Denying EPA Guy Could Spell Disaster For The Environment,” noting that a petition had been posted on the White House website calling for Ebell to be ousted from this role (the petition has since been removed).²⁰

Fossil Fuel Funding & CEI

While the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) doesn’t reveal the sources behind its $7 million annual budget, the Washington Post was able to glimpse a snapshot of CEI‘s funding in a list of donors to CEI‘s annual dinner, which included energy companies Marathon Petroleum, Koch Industries, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).²¹

According to data from The Conservative Transparency Project, CEI has received over $1.5 million from the oil giant ExxonMobil, as well as a combined total of over $6 million from the secretive DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund,²² groups that Mother Jones magazine described as the “Dark Money ATM” of the conservative movement for their ability to obscure donor sources.²³

The following is from an interchange between Myron Ebell and the Environmental Defense Fund’s Jeremy Symons, discussing CEI‘s funding from the coal company Murray Energy (see video below):²⁴

SYMONS: Isn’t Murray Energy your biggest funder of your dinner? They’re the biggest coal company in the United States for underground mining.

EBELL: I’d like to see a lot more funding from all of those companies, but unfortunately many of the coal companies are now going bankrupt.

SYMONS: Wait, You said you don’t represent the companies but you want more money from the companies?

EBELL: I would like to have more funding so that I can combat the nonsense put out by the environmental movement.

Stance on Climate Change

2016

“Believing that man-made climate change exists, as I do, does not necessarily mean that you think that it is rapid or a serious problem or that the policies to address it will actually do anything or that you are willing to pay the costs of those policies.”²⁵

May 2007

“There has been a little bit of warming … but it’s been very modest and well within the range for natural variability, and whether it’s caused by human beings or not, it’s nothing to worry about.”²⁶

December 2006

“So modest climatic improvement would be to have fewer and less severe big winter storms. Amazingly, that’s exactly what we should get if global warming theory turns out to be true. The models say that much of the warming will occur in the upper latitudes and in the winter. At the risk of further ridicule in kooky blogs in England, where global warming alarmism is now a religion, that sounds pretty good to me. Fewer people will die from the cold.”²⁷

2004

“True, the climate is always changing. The fact is, however, that a very moderate amount of warming that we’ve seen in the last century is not a very sound basis to believe that we’re going to have a new ice age.”²⁸

Key Quotes

April 2, 2019

Ebell commented on the Trump Administration’s plan to roll out a list of “climate change victories” in the lead-up to the 2020 election. So-called victories included the Trump EPA’s claim U.S. emissions have fallen since Trump took office, and the establishment of a “presidential committee on climate security”:²⁹

“I don’t think it’s the result of a strategy – I think it’s a result of bumbling around. There are a lot of people in the party, and in the administration, that aren’t as comfortable being climate skeptics as the president is,” Ebell was quoted by McClatchy.³⁰

April 9, 2018

In an interview with The Heartland Institute, discussing the Kyoto Protocol, Ebell declared:³¹

“Most countries failed to meet their carbon dioxide reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol as well, and of course there were fewer countries setting targets then,” said Ebell. “The United States is the only country to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, and that’s for reasons having nothing to do with the Kyoto or the Paris climate agreements. Rather, it is largely a result of coal being displaced by natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide when producing electricity.

“The United States has reduced emissions significantly, but not in an effort to fight climate change or to transform our economy the way countries like Germany and Britain are unsuccessfully trying to do,” Ebell said. “Even though they’ve built more and more wind turbines and solar panels, emissions have actually gone up in Germany: as the country is phasing out its nuclear reactors, utilities are using more coal because wind turbines and solar panels don’t provide enough reliable electricity.”

Ebell said there was “no alternative” to fossil fuels:³²

“It is very expensive to reduce emissions, and unless you’re willing to build nuclear power plants, there is no substitute for coal, natural gas, and oil,” said Ebell. “In the transportation sector, there is no real alternative to gasoline and diesel from petroleum.

“I think a lot of these countries see these agreements as a way to show how virtuous they are and to feel good about themselves, but the actual work of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is very difficult,” Ebell said. “It’s very easy for governments to talk big, but very difficult to follow through and actually cut greenhouse gas emissions to meet commitments.”

April 3, 2018

After a long list of controversies surrounding EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt were reported in various media outlets, Ebell defended him, E&E News reported:

“We’re getting the word out that Administrator Pruitt is doing a good job in implementing the president’s agenda and Administrator Pruitt is a key part of that agenda,” Ebell said. “We’re trying to keep the free-market groups and the conservative groups together in support of the agenda.”

“We’re policy-oriented, and he is, too, but has to deal with these little messes as best as he can do,” Ebell said. “I think he has the confidence of the White House and the president for the good job he is doing, but on these personal issues, I have no idea.”

November 9, 2017

During the Heartland Institute’s “America First Energy Conference,” Ebell declared:³³

“We need to support everything that the Trump administration is doing that’s moving toward less regulation and more freedom, and we need to oppose them when they start going bad and the swamp starts taking over.”

June 1, 2017

Following President Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, Ebell said on CNN that Trump’s decision was justified:³⁴

“We have a moral responsibility to prevent the energy poverty that is part of the Paris Climate Treaty. This agreement will cost the world over a trillion dollars a year and its effects on the climate are imperceptible.”

September 24, 2016

Describing The National Intelligence Council’s report on Implications for U. S. National Security of Anticipated Climate Change, which backs up the Presidential Memorandum on Climate Change and National Security released by the White House, Ebell says:³⁵

“Its ten pages of text are filled with gems of junk science, which are summed up in this ridiculous pontification: ‘Long-term changes in climate will produce more extreme weather events and put greater stress on critical Earth systems like oceans, freshwater, and biodiversity. These in turn will almost certainly have significant effects, both direct and indirect, across social, economic, political, and security realms during the next 20 years.’”

September 2, 2016

“President Obama’s action in joining the [Paris climate] treaty without ratification by the Senate is clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate’s authority.”³⁶

July 2016

Speaking at private, undisclosed meetings held by the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) in Colorado, Ebell urged the GOP attorneys general to continue their effort to push back against ExxonMobil investigation led by NY AG Eric Schneiderman:³⁷

“So what does the other side do?” Ebell said. “Well, the first thing they try to do is try to change reality. They try to change the facts. So they try to reinterpret the data… What a number of the attorneys general here today have done is support our rights to free speech and freedom of association…we are very grateful and I think it had a big impact.”³⁸ ³⁹

December 2015

Speaking about the framework conference on climate change in Paris, Ebell said:⁴⁰

“I don’t want to say it’s a disaster, but I think it is potentially a disaster for humankind and not necessarily any good for the planet.”

August 7, 2015

“The Existing Source Performance Standards (or ESPS) being applied under section 111d of the Clean Air Act to coal- and gas-fired power plants already in operation are called by the EPA the ‘Clean Power’ Plan. Don’t buy it. More accurate names would be the Costly Power Plan or the Skyrocketing Rates Power Plan (h/t Alan Carlin) or the Obama Power Grab (h/t Senator McConnell’s office) or the National Energy Tax (h/t Speaker Boehner’s office).”

” […] The final ESPS is just as obviously illegal as the proposed rule. Whether the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court will see it that way is another matter.”⁴¹

2015

“I think he’s [the Pope] very ill-informed and he is ill-judged in doing this [climate change encyclical].”⁴²

September 2013

“The IPCC summary is merely further evidence of this denial of reality. They are living in cloud-cuckoo land or, perhaps more accurately, they are remarkably similar to the projectors in Gulliver’s third voyage. Most people now understand this. The major groups that don’t are, in this country, the bicoastal urban elite, and, in England, what are called London’s chattering class.”⁴³

2013

“The policies being promoted are insane… If you believe energy poverty is a good thing, you should support controls on carbon emissions. But most of the world disagrees with that.”⁴⁴

October 2012

“ [W]e believed that the consensus was phony. We believed that the so-called global warming consensus was not based on science, but was a political consensus, which included a number of scientists.”⁴⁵

May 2012

“As carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, global temperatures flattened out, contrary to the models [used by climate scientists and the United Nations].”⁴⁶

March 2012

“[A]s a society, we could waste a fair amount of money on preparing for sea level rise if we put our faith in models that have no forecasting ability.”⁴⁷

November 2009

On the so-called “Climate-Gate” controversy:

“It is clear that some of the ‘world’s leading climate scientists,’ as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position.”⁴⁸

2007

“Every interview I do, when I’m asked about scientific issues, I say I’m not a climate scientist. I’m just giving you the informed layman’s perspective. […]”⁴⁹

2006

In an October 2006 BBC interview, Ebell pointed out that ExxonMobil would probably not fund the CEI if it changed its stance on global warming.⁵⁰

Transcript:

BBC: Myron Ebell why do you imagine that Exxon gives you money?

Ebbel: You know, I think that the attempt here to claim that only the purest of the pure can engage in the public policy debate…

BBC: Please answer the question Mr. Ebell, why do you imagine they give you money?

Ebell: Because we send them letters asking them to support our general programs which… our general program is simply this: we believe in free markets and we support policies that promote less regulation of people’s daily lives.

BBC: And they would presumably not be giving you that money if they felt you for taking a different view on, say for example climate change.

Ebell: I suppose that’s right. We develop our policies and then we try to find funding.

November, 2005

Myron Ebell spoke on BBC Radio 4, calling Sir David King “ an “alarmist with ridiculous views who knows nothing about climate change.”⁵¹

2005

“We’ve always wanted to get the science on trial […] we would like to figure out a way to get this into a court of law […] this could work.”⁵²

2004

“[A]s previous studies have concluded, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are probably thickening rather than melting.”⁵³

2003

“Kyoto is dead and has been dead, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t done some real damage and won’t continue to do some real damage,” “If global warming turns out to be a problem, which I doubt, it won’t be solved by making ourselves poorer through energy rationing.” “It will be solved through building resiliency and capability into society and through long-term technological innovation and transformation.”⁵⁴

1995

“The federal regulatory regime on public and private lands is in the process of putting whole industries out of business or damaging them severely.”⁵⁵

Key Actions

October 31–November 12, 2021

Ebell, filed under the Competitive Enterprise Institute, attended the twenty-sixth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, according to the official provisional list of registered participants (PLOP).⁵⁶

Listed CEI representatives included:

Elena Morano — Representative, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
James Taylor — President, Heartland Institute
Jessica Morano — Representative, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Kent Lassman — President
Kevin Williamson
Myron Ebell — Director, Center for Energy and Environment

April 6, 2020

Ebell, representing CEI, is signatory to an American Energy Alliance letter to President Donald Trump supporting the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule which would scrap federal fuel economy mandates under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program.⁵⁷

Describing CAFE, the letter contends: “Those families and individuals who prefer or need trucks, SUVs, and crossovers pay more to subsidize those who buy smaller vehicles or electric vehicles under the existing mandate. This significant, needless, and unjust cost is a very real regressive tax on American families that has made our country worse off.”

March 31, 2020

Myron Ebell was included in a list by Rolling Stone in an article titled “Climate Enemies: The Men Who Sold the World.” According to the magazine, “bad actors are not only failing to address the crisis, they’re actively exacerbating it” and the list includes “America’s worst offenders, from fossil-fuel industry magnates, to investment gurus, to the president himself.”⁵⁸

“Ebell has made a career out of casting doubt on climate science (though he has no scientific training himself), most notably through his role at the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank that has taken millions from the fossil-fuel industry,” the article notes. “In 2016, he led Trump’s transition team at the EPA, helping to put in place a team to dismantle Obama’s policies, and he has continued to advocate for harmful rollbacks like replacing the landmark Clean Power Plan with weaker regulations.”

March 23, 2020

As reported at DeSmog,⁵⁹ Life:Powered sent a letter to Congress critical of the COVID-19 stimulus package for including “tax incentives and spending for unreliable ‘green’ energy
programs.”⁶⁰

The letter, to which Ebell is a signatory, concludes:

“This is no time for political games. Climate change is not an immediate threat to humanity. Climate-related deaths have declined 98.9% in the last century, and humanity is growing more and more resilient thanks to the availability of affordable, reliable energy. On behalf of all Americans, we urge you to oppose any stimulus proposals that carve out special treatment for or bail out any energy companies and focus instead on stopping COVID-19.”

The full list of signatories is below:

Name	Title	Organization
Jason Isaac	Senior Manager & Distinguished Fellow	Life:Powered/Texas Public Policy Foundation
Myron Ebell	Director, Center for Energy and Environment	Competitive Enterprise Institute
Bette Grande	CEO	Roughrider Policy Center
Ellen Weaver	President & CEO	Palmetto Promise Institute
Isaac Orr	Policy Fellow	Center of the American Experiment
Bethany Marcum	Executive Director	Alaska Policy Forum
David T. Stevenson	Director, Center for Energy and Environment	Caesar Rodney Institute
Donald van der Vaart	Senior Fellow	John Locke Foundation
Jason Hayes	Director of Environmental Policy	Mackinac Center for Public Policy
John Droz, Jr.	Founder	Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions
George K. Rasley, Jr.	Managing Editor	ConservativeHQ.com
Becky Norton Dunlop	Former Secretary of Natural Resources	Commonwealth of Virginia
James L. Martin	Founder/Chairman	60 Plus Association
Saulius “Saul” Anuzis	President	60 Plus Association
Ken Blackwell	Senior Fellow	Family Research Council
Eunie Smith	President	Eagle Forum
Jenny Beth Martin	Honorary Chairman	Tea Party Patriots Action
Jon Caldara	President	Independence Institute
L. Brent Bozell, III	Founder and President	Media Research Center
Jason Pye	Vice President of Legislative Affairs	FreedomWorks
Jameson Taylor	Vice President for Policy	Mississippi Center for Public Policy
Carol Platt Liebau	President	Yankee Institute
Mike Stenhouse	CEO	Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity
Daniel Erspamer	CEO	Pelican Institute for Public Policy
Christian N. Braunlich	President	Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy
Todd Myers	Environmental Director	Washington Policy Center

July 11, 2019

Myron Ebell, representing Competitive Enterprise Institute, was a signatory to an American Energy Alliance open letter to President Trump, congratulating him for rolling back Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and urging him not to cut a deal with California to allow them to operate with separate regulations.⁶¹

“Your efforts to reform this mandate will save consumers money, preserve their choices, and ensure that the federal government, and not a single state, sets national policy,” the letter reads.⁶²

“The existing mandate makes cars more expensive. … In short, because of the mandate, those consumers who prefer trucks, SUVs, or crossovers pay more to subsidize those who buy smaller vehicles or electric vehicles.”⁶³

January 8, 2019

During bushfires in Australia, Ebell co-wrote an article entitled “Australian wildfires were caused by humans, not climate change” in the Washington Examiner with P atrick Michaels, also of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. ⁶⁴ They said: “it’s very convenient for alarmist greens to blame the fires of Australia and California on global warming. In reality, the policies they themselves advocate are the culprits.” They argued that governments had been pressured into pursuing “bad [land] management policies” by environmental groups.⁶⁵

Claims that environmental policies and arson were to blame for the bushfires have been debunked, though they continue to be propagated by social media bots and fringe websites such as Alex Jones’s InfoWars.⁶⁶

July 9, 2019

A Trump administration plan to conduct a “red team, blue team” critical review of climate science prior to the 2020 election, pushed by National Security Council member William Happer, has “stalled indefinitely” following negative publicity and pushback from within the administration.⁶⁷

Commenting on the reversal, a disappointed Ebell told E&E News:

“It’s been totally stymied by the forces of darkness within the administration, but also by the looming election campaign. […] The reelect campaign has been completely taken over by the usual cast of Republican establishment consultants who are primarily concerned with making very large amounts of money on the campaign.”

June 2019

The New York Times, reporting on newly released government emails resulting from a freedom of information request by the Sierra Club, described how Myron Ebell and the Competitive Enterprise Institute “weighed in at a critical juncture in the policymaking process” to push President Trump to roll back emissions standards and freeze fuel economy standards for vehicles.⁶⁸

“The automakers are not going to help and may be part of the opposition,” wrote Ebell in a May 2018 email to supporters and an official at the Environmental Protection Agency.

In a May 10, 2018 letter to Trump, Ebell along with two other people that had assisted with the transition wrote:

“We understand that some in the automaker community have expressed concerns about your current plans to reform the program. Their main concern is the expected legal battle with California,” they wrote. “In fact, what many liberal California politicians really want to do is ban gasoline-powered cars altogether.”

“You should dismiss this concern. We agree that in an ideal world, California would negotiate with you in good faith, but we all know that is not a reality in this current political climate.”

Ebell took credit for the Trump administration’s apparent decision to move forward with the rollbacks, repeating a debunked claim that more fuel-efficient vehicles are also less safe:

“It’s taken a long time but finally the Trump administration has come around. Lighter, smaller cars are less safe than bigger, heavier cars,” he said.

May 9, 2019

Myron Ebell, representing the Competitive Enterprise Institute, signed on to an open letter organized by the American Energy Alliance designed to fight against an electric vehicle tax credit.⁶⁹

“The American Energy Alliance has organized a coalition to proclaim in one unified voice that there should be no expansion of the misguided electric vehicle tax credit,” Thomas Pyle wrote in a statement, quoted at The Daily Caller. “There is no question that the electric vehicle tax credit distorts the auto market to no gain.”⁷⁰

According to Pyle and others who signed the letter, electric vehicle tax credits “overwhelmingly benefit the rich.” DeSmog’s Koch vs. Clean project has systematically debunked this, among other well-rehearsed talking points and misinformation put forward by industry about electric vehicles.⁷¹

The letter cites research by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), a group that has received over $600,000 from ExxonMobil and millions from “dark money” groups DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.

February 27, 2019

Ebell appeared before the Congressional Western Caucus alongside Marc Morano and David Legates to provide testimony in opposition to the proposed Green New Deal. Painting the proposal in stark terms, Ebell warned the caucus that:

“The Green New Deal is really a nightmare. I’ve called it the ‘Back to the Dark Ages Manifesto.’ But I’ve recently started calling it the ‘Green Leap Backwards’ because it’s so much modeled on the Great Leap Forward that the Chinese communist party started in 1958. By the time it ended, I believe somewhere between 18 million and 55 million died of starvation.”

Ebell also sounded the alarm about the possibility of Republican capitulation to some of the GND’s proposals:

“The other danger of the Green New Deal […] is the fact that by expanding the political spectrum of what’s in the debate, it’s moving the debate left, and it’s creating a very large space for a certain class of people, many of them in the Republican party, to start talking about how we need to have moderate solutions or reasonable solutions.”⁷²

August 7, 2018

Ebell spoke at the Heartland Institute‘s “America First Energy Conference” (AFEC 2018) in New Orleans, Louisiana.⁷³

“The purpose of this event is to promote and expand energy freedom in the United States, as outlined in President Donald Trump’s bold America First Energy Plan, a proposal first released during the 2016 presidential campaign. The president’s plan marks a decisive change in direction from the Obama administration’s ‘war on fossil fuels’ and focus on the theory of catastrophic man-caused climate change,” the conference description reads.⁷⁴

Ebell spoke on two panels: “PANEL 4A. REINING IN THE REGULATORS” and “PANEL 6. REFORMING EPA: LOTS OF PROGRESS, MORE TO DO.”⁷⁵ Videos below.

May 10, 2018

Myron Ebell, representing the Competitive Enterprise Institute was one of three signatories of an open letter to Donald Trump requesting that he follow through on a major rollback of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for the auto industry.⁷⁶

The open letter was sent amid concerns from the the auto industry that the rollback could result in a “regulatory nightmare,” with potentially years of litigation from California and a lack of regulatory certainty. Bill Ford, chairman of Ford Motor Co., said at the company’s annual meeting, “We are not asking the administration for a rollback.” He said, “We want California at the table, and we want one national standard.”⁷⁷

Despite this, presidential transition team members Pyle, Myron Ebell, and Shirley Ybarra pleaded with Trump, saying “You should dismiss this concern.” The letter continues: “We agree that in an ideal world, California would negotiate with you in good faith, but we all know that is not a reality in this current political climate.” Signatories also the existing mandate would mean “those consumers who prefer trucks, SUVs, or crossovers pay more to subsidize those who buy smaller vehicles.”

“These significant increases in the average price of a car or truck are a very real regressive tax on American families that make consumers poorer and the economy weaker,” Pyle, Ebell, and Ybarra wrote.

November 15, 2017

The Washington Post, having obtained audio and documents on a closed-door meeting hosted by the Heartland Institute prior to it’s America First Energy Conference, reported that Ebell was among the participants.⁷⁸

At the meeting, Ebell described the EPA‘s “key failing” as a “totally dysfunctional personnel process.”

“We only got people nominated to the subordinate positions at EPA this summer,” Ebell said.

A “Energy Freedom Scorecard” was also distributed at the meeting, marking the Trump administration’s progress at rolling back environmental regulations. Items listed as “done” included withdrawing implementation of the Waters of the U.S. rule, “Dramatically reduce government funding of environmental advocacy groups,” “Withdraw from the Paris Accord” and also withdrawal from the Clean Power Plan.

The plan was divided into three parts: “Rein in EPA,” “Repeal Global Warming Regulations,” and “End Climate Profiteering.” The last included the repealing of Renewable Power Mandates (RPMs) in the states, abolishing the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), and ending tax credits to wind and solar.

The second part suggests creating a “President’s Council on Climate Change,” presumably with a similar makeup to the “Red Team” proposed by Scott Pruitt, “advising the President on what policies to repeal and what policies to pursue.”

November 11, 2017

Ebell spoke on BBC Radio 4, in an interview with Mishal Husain. The exchange detailed progress of the 23rd session of the Conference of the Parties (COP23) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in Bonn, Germany. Ebell was also given the opportunity to expand on his views on climate change:⁷⁹

Mishal Husain: “Do you believe global warming is a problem?”

Myron Ebell: “I think it could become a problem but I certainly don’t think it is an imminent crisis in the way that the alarmists try to make us believe.”

Mishal Husain: “And does that mean you do not see the emissions as not a problem?”

Myron Ebell: “The predictions made at the beginning of the era of global warming alarm have so far proven to be wildly inaccurate and they’ve all been much higher than predicted. And the impacts have been much milder than predicted. So I think we’ve seen a tiny bit of warming in the last 20 years but if you believe the alarmists we should have seen a lot. So I think there’s something basically wrong with the theory.”

An article critical of Ebell’s talk and of BBC, posted at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at Imperial College London, describes how “Many of Mr Ebell’s claims are demonstrably false. For instance, his assertion that the projections of global warming over the past 20 years have been ‘wildly inaccurate’ is completely untrue.”⁸⁰

Ebell’s interview had been followed by one with Professor Joanna Haigh, Co-Director of the Grantham Institute. Haigh had made an attempt to correct a statement made by Ebell, but in a “bizarre” turn, the host “attempted to defend Mr Ebell’s false claims about the science of climate change”:

Professor Haigh: “Well the climate process is carrying on and all the countries apart from the US have signed up to the Paris Agreement and the meeting this week is now thinking about how they’re going to implement and better the commitments made at that stage. Can I just correct one thing, at least one thing, that Mr Ebell said in terms of the predictions of global warming. If you look at the predictions that have been made by computer models they are bang on actually. There’s a spread of course. There’s a range of uncertainty but they are completely on the picture and they are predicting warming more and more.”

Mishal Husain: “Um. He’s looking at it sort of, you know, a span across history but I mean I think if we leave that to one side for a moment and just talk about the politics of all of this.”

“Listeners were left with the erroneous impression that Professor Haigh had misinterpreted Mr Ebell’s statements,” the Grantham Institute article concluded.

November 9, 2017

Ebell was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s “America First Energy Conference” at the Marriott Hotel in Houston, Texas. Ebell spoke on “Panel 6B: Reforming EPA,” and his speech was titled “Reforming the EPA: A lot already done, a lot more to do”:⁸¹

See PDF and PowerPoint of presentation.

During the presentation, Ebell mentioned his long history of working with the Heartland Institute:

“I’ve worked with Sterling and Heartland, and many of the people at Heartland for a long, long time. Long before I joined CEI. And I just want to say it’s an indispensable group. […]

Sterling mentioned that I chair this nonprofit coalition called the Cooler Heads Coalition, and the Heartland Institute plays an indispensable role in the effort over the years to stop Kyoto, to defeat cap and trade, and now to […] get us out of the Paris Climate Treaty.” [8:35:00]

Referring the talk by fellow speaker Steve Milloy, Ebell said that he is with the “abolish side” when it comes to cutting the EPA. He went on to emphasize that while Scott Pruitt can “do a lot of things” in his role at the EPA, that “We have to codify as many of these things into law as soon as possible, otherwise they will be undone by a future administration, either democrat or typical Bush establishment Republican.”

“This is a great moment. Everybody should savor it and keep pushing. We need to support everything that the Trump administration is doing that’s moving toward less regulation and more freedom, and we need to oppose them when they start going bad and the swamp starts taking over,” Ebell said. [8:45:55]

Ebell noted that Republicans have been too quick to declare success in the past:⁸²

The environmental movement will get 95 percent of what they want from an administration and they’ll complain and say, we’re being sold out because we didn’t get 100 percent,” Ebell said during the conference.

“We get 50 percent of what we want and we say thank you. We shouldn’t do that.”

Answering a question on abolishing the EPA, Ebell said that he didn’t want to answer the question because “it gets quoted back when you say things like ‘well, I’d like to abolish the EPA because I don’t think it has any constitutional standing’ so I won’t say that.” [8:51:50]

“We now have an opportunity to downsize the scope and the size of the EPA,” Ebell added, describing Mick Mulvaney, director of OMB, as “the true superstar of this administration” and pointing to his proposal in the budget for a 31% cut in the EPA that would also get rid of 3800 employees.

“If you have 3800 fewer regulators, you’re going to have a lot less regulation,” Ebell said, adding that people should contact senators to urge for a 31% cut as opposed to the House vote for a 6% cut.

“For those of you who think the EPA doesn’t have any legitimacy, tell your congressman or your senator that you prefer 31% rather than 6%. That’s a start. Let’s move towards a 1/3 cut in the EPA, and then see where we are.”

The conference event description read as follows:⁸³

“At the America First Energy Conference, we plan to examine—one year and one day after Trump’s shocking Election Day victory—the following:

“Where does Trump’s America First Energy Plan stand?

“How much progress has been made in implementing it, and what remains to be done?

“What scientific and economic evidence is there that the plan is putting the nation on the right path for economic growth, environmental protection, or both?”⁸⁴

In a fundraising letter obtained by DeSmog before the conference, Fred Palmer had promoted the event as having the goal to “review the scientific and economic evidence that exposes the fraud inherent in the Obama-era regulation regime” while discussing “the overwhelming benefits of fossil fuels to us all.”⁸⁵

Many of the other speakers have regularly spoken at the Heartland Institute’s past ICCCs. Notable speakers listed so far include Joe Bast, Fred Palmer, Roger Bezdek, H. Sterling Burnett, Hal Doiron, Paul Driessen, John Dale Dunn, Myron Ebell, Heartland’s new President Tim Huelskamp, Craig Idso, David Legates, Jay Lehr, Anthony Lupo, Ross McKitrick, Steve Milloy, Todd Myers, John Nothdurt, David Schnare, and numerous others.⁸⁶

As reported at the Houston Chronicle, speakers notably included two Trump Administration officials: Richard W. Westerdale II of the State Department and Vincent DeVito of the Department of Interior. David Bernhardt, deputy secretary of the Interior Department, was also formerly listed as a Heartland conference speaker, but apparently withdrew.⁸⁷

Scott Pruitt also addressed the conference in a recorded video, personally thanking Heartland for “what you’re doing to advance energy” and “for what you’re doing to advance natural resources.⁸⁸

The Climate Investigations Center put up a parody of the America First Energy conference website, complete with profiles on the individual speakers and highlighting their corporate funding and ties to groups such as the Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC).⁸⁹

September 15, 2017

According to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, now is not the time to talk about global warming. Pruitt had said in a CNN phone interview that, in the wake of Hurricane Irma, “To have any kind of focus on the cause and effect of the storm; versus helping people, or actually facing the effect of the storm, is misplaced.”⁹⁰

Writing in an opinion piece at at The Hill, Ebell defended Pruitt’s statements:⁹¹

“Pruitt is of course absolutely right to focus on government action rather than idle chatter, but that has not dissuaded global warming activists and even some elected officials from trying to take political advantage of these two huge storms to promote their pet cause — policies to limit the use of fossil fuels,” Ebell wrote.

“We, at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, think it’s important to nip in the bud the assertion that Harvey and Irma are ominous signs of global warming; and since we’re not involved in hurricane relief, we will not be wasting time that should be spent on more important matters.”

Ebell describes the general agreement among climate scientists that hurricanes have been made worse and longer in duration by climate change as “a lot of loose talk […] blown way out of proportion by Al Gore and other Old Testament prophet-wannabes.”⁹²

In another article, CNN reported that “yes, climate change made Harvey and Irma worse.” CNN spoke with Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, who said “now is absolutely the time to be having this conversation” about climate change’s effects. However, Hayhoe and other climate scientists say it’s important to emphasize their believe that climate change didn’t cause Harvey and Irma. “No scientist ever said that,” Hayhoe said. “What you will find is that we’re basically saying the same thing, which is that climate change exacerbates those risks [of the storms].”⁹³

September 2017

The Washington Post reported on the influence that Myron Ebell and the Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC) played in President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord.⁹⁴

“He [Trump] made the decision. We helped create the circumstances,” Ebell told The Washington Post. “When you are persistent, good things can happen.”

The Washington Post notes that this is an example of the “little-known role that tax-exempt public charities play in modern campaigns to sway lawmakers and shape policy in the nation’s capital, while claiming to be nonpartisan educational organizations.”

The Post noted that members of the CHC are only a small part of the larger network of tax-exempt nonprofit groups “linked by ideology and funding, that supported Trump while disparaging Democrat Hillary Clinton in last year’s presidential campaign.”

Robert Brulle, professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University, described the situation:

“Public charities serve as so-called independent think tanks, providing analysis to create the appearance they are independent, third-party voices,” Brulle said. “It becomes so complicated and so sophisticated. This is how modern politics operates.”

Brulle is author of a 2013 study, titled “Institutionalizing Delay,” which tracked the hundreds of millions of dollars contributed to nonprofit “think tanks” fighting against global warming regulations. The Post also uncovered an email by Ebell, inviting those who opposed the Paris agreement to a White House briefing:

“Thank you for agreeing to be part of the basket of deplorables,” he wrote in an April 18 email. “The purpose of the meeting is to present our views on why President Trump should keep his campaign commitment to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty.”

Ebell admitted that some activities of the CHC do “bleed into political persuasion and lobbying,” however added that this was commonplace in Washington, and does not violate IRS rules because it doesn’t constitute a substantial portion of its work.

A former CHC member, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the group’s mission while led by Ebell was to be a a “Johnny-on-the-spot for climate denialism” and to simulate a “cacophony of voices” against climate-change science.

“There’s a whole web,” the former member said. “Their job was to make sure the hard right remained animated.”

June 1, 2017

Ebell spoke on CNN shortly after President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. Replying to a comment that the United States would be one of the few countries not supporting the Paris Climate Agreement, he said:⁹⁵

“This is a great day for America, and I think it’s a great day for the world. And I think the world will see that eventually.

The United States under President Trump is trying to lead the world in a new direction. To lead to a brighter future. Our moral responsibility, as he pointed out, is to the workers and the consumers.”

According to Ebell, “We have a moral responsibility to prevent the energy poverty that is part of the Paris Climate Treaty. This agreement will cost the world over a trillion dollars a year and its effects on the climate are imperceptible.”

CNN reported that Ebell “likely had as much influence shaping Trump’s decision as any single individual.”⁹⁶

“We have finally prevailed through the actions of President Trump and his administration,” Ebell had said in another CNN interview.

May 8, 2017

Myron Ebell, representing CEI, is a signatory to an open letter to President Donald J. Trump urging him “to withdraw fully from the Paris Climate Treaty and to stop all taxpayer funding of UN global warming programs.”⁹⁷

DeSmog reported that the 40 groups represented in the letter, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), The Heartland Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, have received a combined total of millions of dollars from the Koch Brothers, ExxonMobil, and other industry groups.⁹⁸

Analysis also showed that the groups accepted about $80 million through Donors Capital Fund and Donors Trust, two groups that have been confirmed is a key financial source for key U.S-based climate change denial groups.⁹⁹

April 2017

As reported at DeSmog, Ebell spoke at a Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) Summit. During his talk, Ebell described California’s economy as a “disaster” and reiterated his denial of climate change science.¹⁰⁰

“The whole thing about the Obama election is he wanted to turn the United States economy into a model from California,” Ebell said. “A lot of the climate action plan is to turn Indiana, Ohio, Michigan into an economy resembling that of California, namely a disaster.”

While other presenters at the summit had outlined the benefits of investing in renewables, Ebell suggested a gamble on coal:

“Let’s see what happens if we get rid of the war on coal, and then let’s see if the coal industry has a future,” Ebell said. “I don’t know but it’s really up to them.”

On the dangers of global warming, Ebell said they were “made up”:

“I think that the impacts of warming have been either exaggerated or made up,” Ebell said at the BNEF summit. “I think most of the impacts are fairly mild and are likely to remain mild.”

March 23–24, 2017

Myron Ebell was a speaker at the Heartland Institute‘s 12th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12). On March 23, he received the “Speaks Truth To Power Award,” and on March 24 he went to speak on the “Resetting Climate Policy” Panel. Videos below.¹⁰¹

Ebell accepts “Speaks Truth To Power Award”

During his acceptance speech for the Truth to Power Award, Ebell spoke about his reasons for being a climate skeptic.

“The problem with the expertariat that runs our country now or wants to or continue to run our country is that they can see the future. They know exactly what’s going to happen and they know the ideal policies, the perfect economic setup […] in fact, those policies, once they entered the political realm, no matter how good they sound in theory are always made as inefficient, and in many cases as criminal as possible. So what we have now as the result of this expertariat that has been driving global warming policy since the early 1990s is a climate industrial complex that is sucking our economy dry for no benefit.”

Speaking about the problem peak oil and the solution of utilizing shale oil, Ebell stated that “Human beings have a brain that can find new resources. In fact, these so-called limited resources, non-renewable resources are in fact limitless, for all practical purposes.”¹⁰²

Resetting Climate Policy

During his presentation, Ebell spoke about Trump’s intentions for the EPA.

“Remember, President Trump said during the campaign more than once that he hoped to abolish the agency, he’d like to abolish it. Well, 31% is a good start isn’t it, first year […] it’s going to be a huge fight in congress to get programs eliminated. We can debate the details, but I think what we shouldn’t debate is we need a huge cut at the EPA. […] The reason the EPA is on a regulatory rampage is because they have a lot of regulators, let’s reduce the number of regulators.”¹⁰³

March 1, 2017

Ebell appeared on E&E News, along with Erich Pica, president at Friends of the Earth and E&E News reporters Robin Bravender and Evan Lehmann to debate the administration’s climate and energy strategy.¹⁰⁴

“The think the rules that are being repealed show the dangers of building your policies on sand, which is what the Obama administration did,” Ebell said. “These are not laws that he’s repealing, it’s regulations that go far beyond the laws in most cases.”

“And in fact, most of the agenda of the Obama administration had very little to do with improving the environment,” Ebell added. “It had to do with an ideological agenda which he tried to, you know, institutionalize through executive order and regulation and President Trump is going to sweep that away and get down to the basic core values and mission of the EPA, which is protecting the environment rather than increasing its control over people and the economy.”

“I think the EPA has gone far beyond its mission under the Obama administration, and I think re-concentrating the agency on its core mission of protecting the environment and improving our environmental quality, rather than a huge climate regime, which has very little to do with reducing greenhouse gas emissions or atmospheric concentrations globally but has a lot to do with slowing down the economy through raising energy prices. I think that’s going to be swept away. And I think people should realize that Congress hasn’t authorized any of these programs.”

Speaking on the endangerment finding, Ebell said “Well, that’s a hard question. I think that President Trump committed, but only once during the campaign, to re-open the endangerment finding. Most of the other commitments he made in several speeches and interviews. But he did say he wanted to re-open the endangerment finding and so I think that’s still an open question in the White House.”

E&E News video Managing Editor Monica Trauzzi asked Ebell “What does the clean power plan get replaced with?”

Ebell responded: “A very minimal program that would regulate emissions from each power plant by improving the heat rate efficiency of the plant.”

Trauzzi: “Would the emissions reductions be at all significant?”

Ebell responded:”No. But you have to remember that the reductions that have been undertaken through executive action, regulatory action, in the Obama Administration are not significant either. But they’re very costly. We’re talking about a very expensive program that is swamped, every year’s reductions are swamped by one month’s increase in Chinese emissions.”

Later, speaking on renewables, Ebell said that “If you take away the subsidies from wind and solar, those industries collapse.”

At about half way through the interview, Erich Pica, president at the Friends of the Earth, referred back to the 1970s when “we couldn’t see because all of the smog that was being breathed in.” “You’re trying to take us back to that day,” he said to Ebell.

Ebell responded that Pica was “living in a fantasy world” and that “Those battles are done.”

“There are still some local problems, but the EPA‘s mission has been basically been accomplished. The fact is, you say that you say that oil, coal, and gas are polluting, but no. All of those pollutants have been cleaned up,” Ebell added.

“By and large, the air is clean, the water is pure, and the EPA can say we’ve accomplished our mission, job well done.”

“What do we do about greenhouse gas emissions?” Trauzzi interjected.

“Well, look, we can have that debate but ever time we’ve had it the Congress has said no, we do not want to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That’s my position, and I’m glad that the Congress agrees with me,” Ebell responded. “And if people disagree with that, then let them fight the votes and change the Congress, and get a new Congress that believes in raising energy prices for absolutely no environmental result.”

Speaking on Trump’s two for one regulatory policy, Ebell said:

“I think President Trump is absolutely right. We’ve got way too many regulations in this country. It’s not only killing the economy, it’s limiting human freedom in the country, and it’s unaccountable.”

February 10, 2017

Ebell was a guest on an episode of BBC‘s HARDtalk program, speaking with host Stephen Sackur about his views on a variety of issues including climate change policy and the environment:¹⁰⁵

When asked if he thinks decarbonizing the global economy is wrong, Ebell responded:

Ebell: “Yes, I do, and I think that the campaign that we’ve just witnessed in the United States is interesting because it’s the first presidential campaign that we’ve had where both candidates, Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump, campaigned on climate policy and on energy policy and put forward very different views.

“One side won, and the other side lost. I think the American people basically agree with President Trump that climate change is not one of their top concerns and that there are a lot more pressing issues to be taken up by the government.”

Stephen Sackur: “Do you think the American people agree with President Trump when he tweets, as he has n the last few years in fact as this is a consistent thought of his, that global warming is ‘a hoax’ ‘I am not a believer,’ he has said. ‘We have weather. It goes up, it goes down. But we have much bigger problems than that.’ Do you think that with those sorts of messages that he tweets out, he is speaking for the American people?”

Ebell: “I think that he’s speaking for the majority of the American people, and I think, you know, he tends to exaggerate for effect and then he walks things back. So he said climate change is a hoax, and then later when he was asked about it he said, well you know I was making a joke but in fact I don’t think it’s a big problem is what, is the gist of his position, I think.”

Sackur: “I was about to say I’m assuming that you don’t think that climate change, given all the overwhelming scientific consensus, you don’t think climate change—man-made climate change, the warming of our planet—you don’t think it’s a hoax, do you? Or do you?”

Ebell: “No, but I think that a great deal of exaggeration has entered the debate by the campaigners for very rigorous climate policies and I think that if you actually look at the science, it doesn’t support what I would call the alarmist position. […]”

January 30, 2017

Myron Ebell recommended cutting the EPA‘s staff by over 5,000 over the next four years, and suggested that the budget be cut in half, reported the Washington Post:¹⁰⁶

“My own personal view is that the EPA would be better served if it were a much leaner organization that had substantial cuts,” Ebell said. He said that cutting 10,000 people from the workforce would be an “aspirational goal. […] You’re not going to get Congress to make significant cuts unless you ask for significant cuts.”

Later in February, 2017, a source told Politico that the White House was proposing to cut the EPA‘s budget by a quarter, and potentially eliminate one in five of the agency’s workers. The budget reduction proposed would be down to $6.1 billion from $8.1 billion, sources said. The White House did not confirm those figures.¹⁰⁷

January 30, 2017

DeSmog UK reported that Myron Ebell spoke at a press conference in London, hosted by the GWPF. During the conference, Ebell spoke of Brexit, describing it as an “opportunity” for the UK to throw out environmental regulations while following President Trump’s lead to increase “dominance as an energy producer.”¹⁰⁸

Attendees of the conference included 60 journalists, with climate change denier James Delingpole among them.

During his speech, Ebell disputed findings from the IPCC and accused climate scientists of exaggerating the implications of man-made climate change for their own gain. He described this so-called “climate industrial complex” as one of the “most dangerous” threats to society.

Describing his views on mainstream climate scientists, Ebell said that he was “very skeptical of expert opinion when it becomes group think and experts gang up against public.” He cited Brexit as an example of a rejection of such expert opinion.

December 12, 2016

E&E News reported that Myron Ebell attended a meeting Capitol Hill hosted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and held in the hearing room of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. The EPW committee is chaired by Senator James Inhofe who, like Trump, has described human-caused climate change as a hoax.¹⁰⁹

DeSmog reported that the event, not open to the public or to the press, featured the “Who’s Who of Climate Science Deniers.” While the event itself was not public, some of those who attended released details on who attended.¹¹⁰

Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts wrote that the meeting was a gathering of the Cooler Heads Coalition and then listed some of the participants on Facebook:¹¹¹

Names mentioned above included:

DeSmog also noted that three of the attendees—Myron Ebell, Randy Randol, and Steve Milloy—had all been part of the Global Climate Science Communications Team in the late 1990s, a group organized by the American Petroleum Institute. According to an early memo, the group said “victory will be achieved when […] Average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’.”¹¹² ¹¹³

July 11, 2016

Myron Ebell attended private, undisclosed meetings held by the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) in Colorado to coordinate on defending ExxonMobil and push back against climate change legislation.¹¹⁴ View audio transcript here.¹¹⁵

Representatives at the event included representatives from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), both of which have received funding from the petroleum industry or ExxonMobil.¹¹⁶

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reports Ebell urged the GOP attorneys general to continue their effort to push back against ExxonMobil investigation led by NY AG Eric Schneiderman:

“So what does the other side do?” Ebell said. “Well, the first thing they try to do is try to change reality. They try to change the facts. So they try to reinterpret the data… What a number of the attorneys general here today have done is support our rights to free speech and freedom of association…we are very grateful and I think it had a big impact.”¹¹⁷

Ebell spoke in a panel presentation titled “Climate Change Debate: How Speech is Being Stifled” alongside Attorneys General Luther Strange and Scott Pruitt, as well as Chet Thompson, President of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.¹¹⁸

July 2016

Myron Ebell criticized a letter to Congress from 31 science associations advocating policies to combat climate change, reported The Washington Times.¹¹⁹

On June 28, 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued the letter and a press release introducing the letter, describing it as a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies “reaffirming the reality of human-caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions ‘must be substantially reduced’ to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.”¹²⁰

The letter (PDF) addresses Members of Congress, writing to remind “of the consensus scientific view of climate change.”¹²¹

Ebell claims most of the letter’s signers “have little or no expertise in climate science, and virtually none knows anything special about making public policies.”¹²²

“In this case, the policies being advocated will destroy millions of jobs and cost trillions of dollars, but many of the professionals represented by these associations will probably do very well from more government funding,” Ebell said.“¹²³

May 18, 2016

Myron Ebell was a signatory to a full page color advertisement in The New York Times¹²⁴ titled “Abuse of Power” (PDF) sponsored by The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The ad serves as an open letter from 43 signatories including organizations and individuals in response to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, and the coalition of AttorneysGeneral investigating groups denying man-made climate change. ¹²⁵

“Attempts to intimidate CEI and our allies and silence our policy research are unconstitutional,” said CEI president Kent Lassman. “The First Amendment protects us and everyone has a duty to respect it – even state attorneys general. CEI will continue to fight for all Americans to support the causes in which they believe.”¹²⁶

The Competitive Enterprise Institute received a subpoena from AG Walker on April 7, 2016. On April 20, CEI filed an objection to the subpoena calling it “offensive,” “un-American,” and “unlawful,” and are contending that AG Walker is “violating CEI’s First Amendment rights.”¹²⁷

The “freedom of speech” argument was echoed by ExxonMobil’s legal team, as well as numerous other conservative groups including the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Heritage Foundation and the recently-formed Free Speech in Science Project, a group created by the same lawyers who defended the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the past.¹²⁸

The CEI letter lists the following signatories:

Kent Lassman — President & CEO, Competitive Enterprise Institute
C. Boyden Gray — Former White House Counsel
Andrew C. McCarthy — Former Chief Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York
Michael B. Mukasey — U.S. Attorney General, 2007-2009; U.S. District Judge, 1988-2006
Ross McKitrick — Professor of Economics, University of Guelph
Ronald D. Rotunda — Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University
Richard S. Lindzen — Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT
William Happer — Emeritus Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Jim DeMint — President, The Heritage Foundation
James H. Amos, Jr. — President & CEO, National Center for Policy Analysis
John A. Baden — Chairman, Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment
Lisa B. Nelson — CEO, American Legislative Exchange Council
Paul Driessen — Author & Energy Policy Analyst
Thomas J. Pyle — President, Institute for Energy Research
Steven J. Allen — Vice President & Chief Investigative Officer, Capital Research Center
David Ridenour — President, National Center for Public Policy Research
Steven J. Milloy — Publisher, JunkScience.com
Brooke Rollins — President & CEO, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Paul Gessing — President, Rio Grande Foundation
Ron Arnold — Researcher & Author
William Perry Pendley — President, Mountain States Legal Foundation
Adam Brandon — President & CEO, FreedomWorks
Hank Campbell — President, American Council on Science and Health
Craig Rucker — Executive Director, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Tom McCabe — CEO, Freedom Foundation
Richard B. Belzer — Economist
Heather R. Higgins — President & CEO, Independent Women’s Voice
Joseph G. Lehman — President, Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Sabrina Schaeffer — Executive Director, Independent Women’s Forum
Joseph Bast — President, The Heartland Institute
John C. Eastman — Founding Director, The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Robert Alt — President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Michael Pack — President & CEO, The Claremont Institute
Josh Blackman — Assistant Professor, South Texas College of Law
Lynn Taylor — President, Tertium Quids
David Rothbard — President, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Tracie Sharp — President & CEO, State Policy Network
Kenneth Haapala — President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Tim Phillips — President, Americans for Prosperity
Myron Ebell — Director of the Center for Energy & Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute
George Landrith — President, Frontiers of Freedom
John Tillman — CEO, Illinois Policy Institute
Craig D. Idso — Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

May 9, 2016

Myron Ebell was a signatory to a letter opposing the National Ozone Standard. “Given the harmful economic effects, we ask that you consider measures to change the ozone standard and reform the rulemaking process,” the letter reads.¹²⁹

February 2016

Myron Ebell was a signatory to an open letter opposing a carbon tax in the United States and supporting Resolution 89.¹³⁰

“As organizations that support free markets as a fundamental pathway to American prosperity, we oppose government policies – such as a carbon tax – that punish some and reward others in accordance with the government’s prevailing viewpoint on market ideals. Such marketplace manipulation represents a recipe for unintended consequences and self-inflicted economic damage. Too often, poor and middle class families bear the burden,” the letter reads.

December 22, 2015

Myron Ebell, after attending the framework conference on climate change in Paris, went on Federalist Radio to discuss his views.

“I don’t want to say it’s a disaster, but I think it is potentially a disaster for humankind and not necessarily any good for the planet,” Ebell said. With regards to Obama and John Kerry’s comments that Global Warming is our largest security threat, Ebell said “This is an attempt to change the subject. It’s to get off real dealing with problems that have very serious dangers and consequences and moving to this kind of feel-good issue of global warming.”¹³¹

Audio below.

December 7, 2015

Myron Ebell was a speaker at a conference organized by The Heartland Institute and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) titled “Day of Examining the Data.” The conference was designed to closely coincide with the United Nation’s Conference on Climate Change (COP21).¹³²

The conference, which was also sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), advertised itself as “open to the public and media” yet refused accredited DeSmog journalists entry to the event.¹³³

See video of Ebell’s presentation and choice quotes below:¹³⁴

“It’s interesting that the global warming alarmists, like many other phenomena of the political left, believe that the way to win a debate is to silence the opposition.

“And, as I think Senator Inhofe—I was talking to him last week—as I think is he will say in his recorded comments, the reason we know we’re winning the debate, the actual political and scientific debate, is because all that the alarmists have is trying to silence us.

“Now, these tactics are not going to work because reality is intervening and thank God for the work that the Heartland Institute, CFACT, and some of the other groups represented in this room today, are bringing truth to power.”¹³⁵

August 5, 2015

Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was interviewed alongside of the Environmental Defense Fund’s Jeremy Symons on the August 5 edition of CSPAN‘s Washington Journal. During the interview, EDF’s Symons “confronted” Ebell about his sources of funding, asking, “Isn’t Murray Energy your biggest funder of your dinner? They’re the biggest coal company in the United States for underground mining.”¹³⁶

Ebell responded:

“I’d like to see a lot more funding from all of those companies, but unfortunately many of the coal companies are now going bankrupt … I would like to have more funding so that I can combat the nonsense put out by the environmental movement.”

June 11-12, 2015

Myron Ebell was a speaker on Panel 14¹³⁷: “Action Items for Policymakers,” at the Heartland Institute’s Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC10) in Washington, D.C., with Marc Morano and Bette Grande.¹³⁸

View Myron Ebell’s Panel 14 presentation at the Heartland Institute’s ICCC10, below:¹³⁹

June 18, 2015

Myron Ebell released a statement on Pope Francis’s Encyclical on Climate Change at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.¹⁴⁰

“Global warming is a moral issue, but a proper moral evaluation must include comparing the impacts of global warming, which may be bad, with the impacts of global warming policies, which will almost certainly be catastrophic. The Pope’s encyclical misses that significant matter,” Ebell Writes.

February 2015

Ebell spoke up to defend Willie Soon after pieces were published in The Guardian¹⁴¹ and the New York Times that accuse Soon of failing to disclose a conflict of interest in recent scientific papers. The New York Times writes ”[Soon] has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.” These articles were written in light of documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings.¹⁴²

“Soon’s integrity in the scientific community shines out,” says Ebell. “He has foregone his own career advancement to advance scientific truth. If he had only mouthed establishment platitudes, he could’ve been named to head a big university [research center] like Michael Mann.”¹⁴³

July 7–9, 2014

Myron Ebell was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9) in Las Vegas, Nevada.¹⁴⁴

DeSmog researched speakers and sponsors from Heartland’s ICCC9, noting the conference attempted to boost attendance by coordinating with “Freedomfest,” another conservative event.¹⁴⁵

December, 2014

As a relatively new line of criticism coming from climate change skeptics, Myron Ebell argued that delegates from Third World countries largely appear at events such as talks in Lima just to collect a per diem payment and “shop in glamorous cities,” as phrased by the Republic Report in their article “Deniers’ Latest Attack on UN Summit: Poor Countries’ Delegates Show Up Just for the Per Diem.”¹⁴⁶

“It’s very desirable for them to go to international conferences in nice locales, and bring their wives and you know, have extra payments,” Ebell said. “The United Nations pays these delegates from poor countries to attend and so it’s very attractive to keep it going.”¹⁴⁷

October 26, 2012

Myron Ebell promised to make the idea of a carbon tax “toxic” to any Republicans who might consider it, reports Climatewire:¹⁴⁸

“And those people, like Glenn Hubbard and Greg Mankiw and Art Laffer, those people are very influential once you get behind closed doors and they start putting a deal together,” said Myron Ebell, who oversees global warming initiatives at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). “And so we have to make the idea of a carbon tax toxic.”

May 21–23, 2012

Myron Ebell was a speaker at the Heartland Institute‘s 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7) where he spoke on “Obama’s War on Affordable Energy” (video below).¹⁴⁹

DeSmog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland’s ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations.¹⁵⁰

November 30, 2009

Myron Ebell appeared on Fox News to debate the so-called “Climate-Gate” controversy. Video below.¹⁵¹

March 8-10, 2009

Myron Ebell was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.¹⁵²

March 2, 2009

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) held a rally to “Celebrate Coal! and Keep Energy Affordable” in front of the Capitol Power Plant. Myron Ebell, listed as one of the event’s organizers, said:¹⁵³

“The goal of Celebrate Coal! is to publicize the colossal benefits of coal-fired power and the need for access to affordable energy. If the anti-coal zealots are allowed to prevail politically, electric rates will skyrocket for most Americans and many jobs will be lost in energy-intensive industries as a result of higher power prices.”

2009

Myron Ebell participated in the “Climate Chains” video along with deniers Chris Horner, Marlo Lewis, Patrick Michaels, and Todd Wynn.

The video claims that “One of the greatest threats to freedom and prosperity in America is climate change legislation.” The video was organized by the Cascade Policy Institute.¹⁵⁴

May 2–4, 2008

Myron Ebell is listed as a signatory of The Manhattan Declaration on Climate change.¹⁵⁵ The declaration recommends “That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.”¹⁵⁶

February 10, 2006

The George Marshall Institute (GMI) and Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) co-hosted a panel discussion titled “The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond: A Roundtable Discussion on the Future of International and U. S. Climate Policy” that included Senator James Inhofe, Myron Ebell, William O’Keefe, Christopher Horner, and Andrew Wheeler.“¹⁵⁷

“The Senator will present four short speeches questioning the four pillars on which the alarmist view of climate change is based: the 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, the IPCC‘s reliance on Michael Mann‘s discredited ―hockey stick‖ model, the Arctic climate impact assessment report, and the flawed data produced by climate models,” read the event summary.

May 11, 2005

Myron Ebell / the Competitive Enterprise Institute may have been involved in emails relating to the investigation of climate scientists by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee under Republican representatives Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield.

Deep Climate reported that the Energy and Commerce Committee “refused the offer of a proper scientific review from the National Academy of Sciences in favour of an investigative process that was ad hoc, biased and unscientific.” The original Barton-Whitfield investigation was inspired by the allegations of Steve McIntyre, with the defining impetus being “a little known Cooler Heads Coalition-Marshall Institute sponsored presentation by McIntyre and sidekick economist Ross McKitrick in Washington barely a month beforehand.”¹⁵⁸

McIntyre’s “Upcoming Washington Trip” on Capitol Hill which would be their second presentation for the CHC/GMI. See M&M’s presentation here.¹⁵⁹ Both Jeff Keuter of the Marshall Institute and Myron Ebell (representing CEI) were present.

McIntyre presented technical analysis where he purported to show various techniques of “cherrypicking” among paleoclimatologists. He also discussed his complaints regarding Michael Mann’s data, as had been previously mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article.¹⁶⁰

Drawing from this analysis and the roundtable discussion, committee chair Joe Barton and subcommittee chair Ed Whitfield launched an investigation of “hockey stick” authors Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. The investigation began with letters of inquiry sent to Mann,¹⁶¹ Bradley¹⁶² and Hughes,¹⁶³ that focused on both data and details of funding and past research associations. Letters were later sent to Rajenda Pachauri, IPCC chair,¹⁶⁴ and Arden Bement, director of the National Science Foundation.¹⁶⁵

At the time, Myron Ebell boasted to BBC News:

“We’ve always wanted to get the science on trial,” and “we would like to figure out a way to get this into a court of law,” adding “this could work.”¹⁶⁶

John Mashey noted¹⁶⁷ that Myron Ebell sent out a combined document of the Barton/Whitfield letters to Perhach just 90 minutes after the documents were created by McGinley, suggesting that he may have had early access to the letters:¹⁶⁸

“McGinley created 5 PDF files from 4:11PM to 4:15PM, and presumably placed them on the
House website about that time or a little later (A.9.6). But Perhach received a combined copy from Ebell
around 5:47PM, about 90 minutes later, impressive work for late Friday afternoon, unless Ebell had gotten
text files even earlier. The email‘s blind copy (BCC) format strongly hints that it was sent to other people
as well. This was efficient electronic execution, especially compared to faxing letters to people who might
well be away on travel.

How did Ebell know? Why were the letters in Ebell’s hands before recipients were guaranteed to have
seen them? Does this sound like a legitimate request, or a PR tactic to put these letters in “friendly” hands
before the recipients could possibly take action on them?” Mashey wrote.¹⁶⁹

Mashey notes several emails showing Ebell’s relationship with Cooney and Perhach, while others promoted the McKitrick and Essex talk. Recipients lists “included an interesting mix of Senate and House staffers, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, Singer, Ferguson, and at least some lobbyists.” Some emails of interest include the following:

6/03/02 Email Ebell to Cooney (“Phil, thanks for calling and asking for our help.”)¹⁷⁰
Shows clear communication between Cooney and Ebell.

02/22/03 Email Sills to Perhach, etc, recommending Essex&McKitrick talk¹⁷¹

06/24/05 Email Ebell to Perhach (and likely, others) Barton/Whitfield Letters¹⁷²

06/29/05 Email Ebell to Perhach (and likely, others) on “McLieberman”)¹⁷³

February 9, 2005

Myron Ebell was a panelist at a congressional and media briefing titled “The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond
: A Roundtable Discussion on the Future of International and U. S. Climate Policy” sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC) and the George C. Marshall Institute.¹⁷⁴

The following panelists were listed:

Senator James M. Inhofe (R- Oklahoma), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Dr. Harlan L. Watson, Senior Climate Negotiator and Special Representative at the U.S. Department of State
William O’Keefe, CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute
Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Christopher C. Horner, Counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition
Jeff Kueter, Moderator, President of the George C. Marshall Institute

March 20, 2004

Myron Ebell was a speaker at “NCPA Earth Day Briefing on Global Warming‘ titled “What Do We Really Know vs. What We Are Told.”¹⁷⁵

November 2004

In 2004 The British House of Commons censured Myron Ebell¹⁷⁶ “in the strongest possible terms” for his “unfounded and insulting criticism of Sir David King, The Government’s Chief Scientist.”¹⁷⁷ King has notably argued that “climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today.”

November 18, 2003

The Competitive Enterprise Institute/Cooler Heads Coalition sponsored a visit from Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre (M&M) at a “Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy” introducing them to the George Marshall Institute (GMI). The CEI and GMI paid for McIntyre’s expenses:¹⁷⁸

Myron Ebell: “As you probably all know, we have done a lot of these. I think this is one of the most interesting ones, because I think we are just at the beginning of what I think will be a major controversy.”

Stephen McIntyre: “My name is Steve McIntyre. I‘d like to express my appreciation to Marshall Institute and CEI for paying my expenses down here.”

Deep Climate reported MckItrick and McIntyre’s Washington Roundtable visit came shortly after they had published their first joint paper in the Energy and Environment titled “Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series” (PDF).¹⁷⁹ ¹⁸⁰

David Appell questioned M&M about the rigour of the paper’s peer-review, given the short timeframe of publication, but “met with stonewalling from McKitrick.” Deep Climate reports E&E editor-in-chief Sonia Boehmer-Christiansen had rushed the paper into publication for “policy impact reasons, e.g. publication well before COP9.”¹⁸¹

At the time, both the CEI and the Marshall Institute were receiving funding from ExxonMobil. Myron Ebell and the Marshall Institute president (and American Petroleum Institute ex-COO) William O’Keefe were both implicated in Bush administration efforts to water down official reports on climate science, according to the Government Accountability Project report “Redacting the Science of ClimateChange” (PDF).¹⁸²

The Wall Street Journal reports that McKitrick was paid $1,000 and had his travel costs covered by the Competitive enterprise Institute, while McIntyre said he took no payment.¹⁸³

February 27, 2003

Myron Ebell was listed as the contact for a Cooler-Heads-Coalition-sponsored “Congressional and Media Briefing” with Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick at the Senate Everett Dirksen Building where Essex and McKitrick promoted their new book, Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.“¹⁸⁴

September 25, 2002

Ebell co-authored an open letter with Marlo Lewis Jr. that requested statements from US Senators on their position regarding the Renewable Portfolio Standard and urged them to rethink their support of the standard, which they call “regressive and coercive.”¹⁸⁵

August 2, 2002

Myron Ebell and Fred L. Smith co-authored an open letter to President George W. Bush, applauding him for not attending the World Summit on sustainable Development in Johannesburg:¹⁸⁶

“We applaud your decision not to attend the summit in person. Although so-called environmental groups may in the next few weeks pressure you to attend, we believe there are good reasons not to give in to this pressure,” they wrote.

Signatories included individuals from a range of conservative think-tanks and groups that routinely deny man-made climate change such as:

Craig Rucker — Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Dennis Avery — Center for Global Food Issues
Deroy Murdock — Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Fred L. Smith, Jr. — Competitive Enterprise Institute
Grover Norquist — Americans for Tax Reform
H. Sterling Burnett — National Center for Policy Analysis
Joseph L. Bast — Heartland Institute
Myron Ebell — Competitive Enterprise Institute
Steven Hayward — American Enterprise Institute
Terrence Scanlon — Capital Research Center

June 3, 2002

The Guardian reports that Myron Ebell collaborated with Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, to cover up the findings of an EPA report on climate change. President Bush’s staff insisted on several major alterations to the report.¹⁸⁷

In the email, dated June 3, 2002, White House officials ask for CEI‘s help in downplaying the EPA‘s report. “Thanks for calling and asking for our help,” Ebell tells Cooney. The email discusses tactics, and also suggests how to get rid of EPA officials such as then-EPA-head Christine Whitman:¹⁸⁸

“It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible,’ Ebell wrote in the email. “Perhaps tomorrow we will call for Whitman to be fired,’ he added.”

Richard Blumenthal, attorney general of Connecticut, wrote to the White House asking for an inquiry. “This email indicates a secret initiative by the administration to invite and orchestrate a lawsuit against itself seeking to discredit an official US government report on global warming dangers,” Blumethanl said.¹⁸⁹

October 11, 2001

The Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC), which Ebell chairs, sponsored a US Congress briefing by Ross McKitrick titled “What’s Wrong With Regulating Carbon Dioxide Emissions?”¹⁹⁰

The briefing concludes, “sound reasoning rejects all forms of regulations on CO2 emissions for the foreseeable future.”

June 21, 2000

Ebell testified, on behalf of the CEI, before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade. In his testimony, Ebell claimed that increasing international trade “generally leads to increasing environmental vitality. The reason is that trade is one of the principal means of increasing wealth.”¹⁹¹

He then suggested environmental groups oppose industrial civilization “precisely because it increases wealth”:

“The simple connection between prosperity and a healthy environment has been obscured by the rantings of the international environmental establishment against the alleged evils of modern industrial civilization and corporate globalization,” Ebell said. ” For them, trade is the enemy precisely because it increases wealth. A cornerstone of modern environmentalism is the claim that affluence and technology are the problem—that they actually increase environmental degradation and deplete the world’s natural resources.“

April 1998

Myron Ebell was listed as a member of the “Global Climate Science Communications Team” (GCSCT) who contributed to a 1998 Global Climate Science Communications Plan organized by the American Petroleum Institute (API).

The New York Times described the GCSCT as “An informal group of people working for big oil companies, trade associations and conservative policy research organizations” who oppose a treaty to fight global warming.¹⁹²

The following is taken from the 1998 memo by the API: (See full memo here)¹⁹³

“Victory Will Be Achieved When

“Average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the “conventional wisdom”
Media ‘understands’ (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current “conventional wisdom”
Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

“Current Reality

Unless ‘climate change’ becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.”

Members of the “Global Climate Science Communications Team” who the API said “contributed to the development of the plan” were listed as follows:¹⁹⁴

A. John Adams — John Adams Associates
Candace Crandall — Science and Environmental Policy Project
David Rothbard — Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow
Jeffrey Salmon — The Marshall Institute
Lee Garrigan — environmental issues Council
Lynn Bouchey and Myron Ebell — Frontiers of Freedom
Peter Cleary — Americans for Tax Reform
Randy Randol — Exxon Corp
Robert Gehri — The Southern Company
Sharon Kneiss — Chevron Corp
Steve Milloy — The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
Joseph Walker — American Petroleum Institute

1995

Myron Ebell opposed Newt Gingrich’s reforms of the Endangered Species Act in 1995, writing of Gingrich: “His soft feelings for cuddly little critters is still going to be a big problem.”¹⁹⁵

Affiliations

Freedom Action is a “grassroots movement” founded in 2009 by the CEI.

Freedom Action believes in “individual rights,” “free markets” “and limited governments.” Links to three of Ebell’s articles appear on the site including one that describes Al Gore as “the leader of the forces of darkness.” All three of the articles were published by Fox News.²⁰²

Frontiers of Freedom (FoF) — Previous policy director.²⁰³

@myronebell on Twitter.
“Myron Ebell” on Facebook.

Publications

Myron Ebell has not published any articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. He has published many articles skeptical of climate change in newspapers, blogs, and magazines. A list of Ebell’s publications is available at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.