Recently we've been writing a lot about the John Locke Foundation,  a North Carolina-based "think" tank.
The reason being that they offer an excellent case study on the world of climate science misinformation and public relations spin.
A case in point today, is a headline on the JLF's blog  titled: "US Senate Committee Disagreeing with Alarmist Views After Reviewing New Evidence." This would be an interesting revelation if it was true.
Geoff Lawrence, an intern  at the John Locke Foundation, writes: "After reviewing the most recent studies, the Committee appears convinced that, at the very least, it is best to take a wait and see approach while the science is debated before taking drastic measures."
The JLF article links to an August 20, 2007 post  on the website of minority Republican chair of the US Senate Committee on Public Works and the Environment, Senator James Inhofe. Not only is the article out-of-date, it isn't even written by Inhofe - it's written by Inhofe's spin-doctor Marc Morano.
Apparently in the minds of the folks at the John Locke Foundation, the US Senate Committee on Public Works and the Environment consists of one person, a longtime climate denier and friend of big oil.  They also fail to realize that the EPW committee is not controlled in any way by Inhofe. It is controlled by Majority Chair, Barbara Boxer who at a recent committee hearing stated that:
I face this challenge with hope, and not fear. By facing this challenge now, we can maximize our chances of avoiding the most dangerous effects of climate change. We will also position America to capitalize on the tremendous opportunities that lie ahead. I believe that we have a moral obligation to do everything we can, starting now, to fight global warming."
That sure doesn't sound like a committee "... convinced that, at the very least, it is best to take a wait and see approach."
The John Locke Foundation states that the purpose of their blog is to "...provide a central location for citizens, policymakers and researchers to gather information and insight about timely environmental issues facing North Carolina."
You would think that if the JLF wants to build a reputation as a valid source of information they would at least understand the basics of how the US Senate's Environment Committee actually works.