David W. Schnare
- J.D., George Mason University School of Law (1999).
- Ph.D., Environmental Management, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (1979).
- M.Sc., Public Health-Environmental Science, University of North Carolina School of Public Health.
- Bachelor's Degree (chemistry and math major), Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, Iowa.
David Schnare is General Counsel at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (formerly American Tradition Institute), as well as the “Director of the Center for Environmental Stewardship” at the Thomas Jefferson Institute. Schnare is the past Director of the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, and Chairman of the Coalition’s Environment and Land Use Committee. He is CEO of Schnare and Associates, Inc. 
The Thomas Jefferson Institute describes Schnare as an attorney and scientist who “managed EPA’s Office of Ground-Water and Drinking Water Economic, Legislative and Policy Analysis Branch and has made contributions on a variety of environmental and policy issues.” 
Schare has called for “geoengineering as a means to put off the most catastrophic potential effects of global warming, at least for a few decades…” 
In a post on his now-defunct blog, The Hard Look, David Schnare described environmental activists as “very sick people” who “quietly rejoice over the potential of millions (billions?) of starving people.” 
Harassment of Climate Scientists
After leaving the EPA in 2011, Schnare spent years suing universities to obtain climate scientists' emails. His efforts began with suing the University of Virginia (UVA) to obtain climate scientist Michael Mann's emails on behalf of the American Tradition Institute. That case, which he coordinated with Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), was unsuccessful. Since then, Schnare and E&E Legal have sued universities across the U.S. including Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Texas, and Washington DC. , 
Discussing Schnare's appointment on Donald Trump's transition team, Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes, co-author of The Merchants of Doubt, a history of industry attacks on scientists, told BuzzFeed News: 
“A man who has been harassing scientists, for doing science, is now going to help shape the future of the most important federal agency that relies on scientific information to inform public policy.” 
The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which provides legal help to researchers targeted by nonprofits funded by the coal and oil industry, described Schnare's work as “one part of a systematic campaign, funded by certain individuals and entities whose economic interests are threatened by any meaningful efforts to combat climate change, to create doubt about the reality, causes, and potential consequences of climate change where there should be none.” 
Schnare himself has described his work as “public service.” Shnare said “For some of us, it’s in the blood. We commit ourselves to public service and we never stop.” 
A former EPA official, Eric Schaeffer, told Buzzfeed News noted that Schnare's legal pursuit of scientists was worth further discussion given his new position on Trump's transition team:
“His agenda appears to be an effort to intimidate climate scientists, I can’t see any other reason to do this,” said Schaeffer. “Otherwise you’d have to subscribe to the notion of a global conspiracy of scientists to make up their science, which just seems loony.” 
David Schnare, E&E Legal, and Coal
Schnare & Scientology
In the early 1980s, one “D.W. Schnare” co-authored 5 papers (one per year from '82-'86) glorifying the Church of Scientology's “Hubbard detoxification” regimen (or “Purification Rundown”) for removing toxins from the body. A “David Schnare,” presumably the same, appears to have been listed as achieving “Clear” status in the Scientology publication Auditor magazine number 126, in August 1976, 6 years before beginning his “detoxification” publications.
Two of these papers were co-written with Hubbard's personal physician, Gene Denk. Some sources identify Schnare as the Director of Research for the Scientology front-group Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education (FASE). 
Schnare's works are frequently cited as on pages about the Scientology-based Narconon, as well as the health benefits of saunas, sweating, and alternative therapies. His book also makes reference to the “body burden” reduction treatment. His “Pro-Narconon medical literature” includes: , , , , , 
- D.W. Schnare, G. Denk, M. Shields, S. Brunton: Evaluation of a Detoxification Regimen for Fat Stored Xenobiotics, Medical Hypothesis, Vol.9, 1982.
- D.W. Schnare, M. Ben, M. Shields: Body Burden Reductions of PCBs, PBBs and Chlorinated Pesticide Residues in Human Subjects, Ambio, Vol.13, No.5-6, 1984.
- D.W. Schnare, P.C. Robinson: Reduction of the Human Body Burdens of Hexachlorobenzene and Polychlorinated Biphenyls, World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Scientific Publications Series, Volume 77, 1986.
Stance on Climate Change
Schnare has said that it is too late to curb global warming because “The world has already exceeded the greenhouse gas emissions 'tipping point' beyond which catastrophic warming cannot be stopped.” 
“When it comes to global warming, I'm a skeptic because the conclusions about the cause of the apparent warming stand on the shoulders of incredibly uncertain data and models…” 
Schnare believes that the IPCC's science “could be wrong. But it could also be right. And, what if the IPCC predictions are true? Then, as the first truth states, it's too late, and the climate scientific community has admitted as much.” 
“For some of us, it’s in the blood. We commit ourselves to public service and we never stop.” 
“For the last 18 years, the global temperature has been level. Hasn't gone up, hasn't gone down. We don't know what's going to happen for the next 18 years. It could go up; it could go down. What we need to do is figure out how to plan so that whatever happens, we're doing something sensible. The clean power plan itself is problematic in that it costs so much money, and will upset some of the work we do on our electric grid to such a degree that we need to have enormous confidence that the kind of changes the EPA currently wants make good sense. For example, if we want to get rid of carbon, one of the best solutions would be to go to nuclear energy.” “The science is still out. I'm a Ph.D. scientist, and people say 'well, you're a skeptic' and my answer is 'well, all scientists are skeptics. That's what being a scientist is.' And, so when you hear a consensus saying 'gee, we think this is a big problem,' and then you actually look at the real science, and you find out, gosh, the temperature has not gone the way we predicted it would, we have to go back and ask 'how are our assumptions doing? Are we really right?' And when we're talking about the size of investment we're talking about, we need to have a great deal of confidence. What we have though are opportunities to make sensible changes. […] What we need to do in the final call is have a good public discussion about this. And, when you do, you find people are not willing to go any further than they have to because of the other expenses in life.” 
April 22, 2014
Speaking at The Heritage Foundation's Happy Earth Day: Dispelling Environmental Myths and Celebrating Human Achievement event, Schnare, at 27:23 states:
“What we really need to do is to admit, as has been said already, is that we’ve succeeded. There is no one single good measure for water quality, but there is a sort of general measure: is the water “impaired” based on what the state said the quality of the water ought to look like. And, so, if you look at all the waters of the United States, and there’s over 300,000 of them, sorry, there’s over 300,000,000 of them—I can’t remember being a lawyer and a scientist—sometimes those numbers can collide, but the bottom line is most of them are not impaired, and those that are impaired, are impaired from natural causes… You know, the deer have to go to the bathroom somewhere.” 
At 34:12 Schnare then says:
“Today, maybe I’m a scientist, but I’m also a lawyer, and when I left the [Environmental Protection] Agency someone asked me and said ‘well, what are you going to do?’ and, I said, ‘I’m going to sue the agency,’ and they went, 'oh no.' And so, [since then] we have [sued]…” 
February 17, 2011
“The energy windmills offer is not free, not clean, not reliable and not consistent. And it doesn’t create new jobs.” 
May 18, 2010
“Those of us familiar with the coal-fired power plant industry have long recognised that CCS may be slightly more than a pipe-dream, but will never be affordable or practicable for the vast majority of coal-fired plants. Yet no one in the bureaucracy has had the courage to stand up and refute this politically correct but scientifically bankrupt concept.” 
May 12, 2010
“Tea Parties are scathingly and properly scathingly opposed to the climate change proposals that have emerged over the past decade. They see the economic consequences of such action, and applying the principles of 'opportunity costs' and the need for honest science, including full transparency in the scientific discussion.” 
March 16, 2010
“These propagandists [Stephen Schneider and other scientists involved in 'Climategate'] are not to be confused with the majority of scientists who have no political agenda and who simply want to be scientists. These are often the scientists who are under attack and should not be. Among them are Richard Lindzen, MIT, Roger Pielke, Sr., University of Colorado – Boulder, and John Christy, UAH. These people refuse to go beyond where observation takes them. They are under attack because they refuse to participate in the propaganda campaigns.” 
April 16, 2008
“I note in passing, by the way, that many environmental activists quietly rejoice over the potential of millions (billions?) of starving people. They think we need population control and food riots prove their point at the same time that it reduces population. These activists are very sick people and they constitute the leadership of most of the national environmental movement. But we've known about that for years, so I don't suppose any of us should be particularly surprised about that.” 
March 16, 2008
“The Virginia plan to reduce greenhouse gases by a mere 30 percent by 2020 is too little, too late and so is the even more aggressive IPCC proposal to reduce them by 80 percent.” 
“So what's the problem with CO2? Well, it is a greenhouse gas and the general consensus is that the world needs to cut back on CO2 emissions. Indeed, the nation's foremost global warming scientist, Jim Hansen, claims we need to reduce our CO2 emissions to near zero, and within the next 12 years.
Well, that isn't going to happen. We don't have the capacity to stop using existing coal-fired power plants. […]” 
September 26, 2007
“As Ken Caldeira, a professor of climate science at Stanford University, explains, reducing greenhouse gases will cost around 2 percent of the gross domestic product while geo-engineering (by putting reflective aerosols into the upper atmosphere) will cost about one-thousandth of that.” 
May 14, 2015
David Schnare was featured in the first session of a televised policy debate series sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy on on Richmond's “Community Idea Station”, WCVE-TV “Living with Climate Change.” 
Schnares opponent in the debate was Glen Besa, director of the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra club and the debate was moderated by political analyst Dr. Bob Holsworth. Video below, followed with some excerps from Schnare's portion of the debate. 
“According to Judith Curry […] we just don't know. […]”“For the last 18 years, the global temperature has been level. Hasn't gone up, hasn't gone down. We don't know what's going to happen for the next 18 years. It could go up; it could go down. What we need to do is figure out how to plan so that whatever happens, we're doing something sensible. The clean power plan itself is problematic in that it costs so much money, and will upset some of the work we do on our electric grid to such a degree that we need to have enormous confidence that the kind of changes the EPA currently wants make good sense. For example, if we want to get rid of carbon, one of the best solutions would be to go to nuclear energy.”“The science is still out. I'm a Ph.D. scientist, and people say 'well, you're a skeptic' and my answer is 'well, all scientists are skeptics. That's what being a scientist is.' And, so when you hear a consensus saying 'gee, we think this is a big problem,' and then you actually look at the real science, and you find out, gosh, the temperature has not gone the way we predicted it would, we have to go back and ask 'how are our assumptions doing? Are we really right?' And when we're talking about the size of investment we're talking about, we need to have a great deal of confidence. What we have though are opportunities to make sensible changes. […] What we need to do in the final call is have a good public discussion about this. And, when you do, you find people are not willing to go any further than they have to because of the other expenses in life.”
April 22, 2014
David Schnare was a speaker at The Heritage Foundation's “Happy Earth Day: Dispelling Environmental Myths and Celebrating Human Achievement” event. 
See the video footage here:
The University of Virginia (UVA) criticized David Schnare, claiming that he had misrepresented himself by requesting emails from climate scientist Michael Mann while still working for the EPA, even though Schnare claimed he had already left his EPA position at the time of the request. 
The University argued for denying the release of Mann's emails, as it appeared Snare had pursued their release from the UVA “during regular weekday business hours” while working for the EPA. The UVA also argued that the letter Schnare produced that claimed he had alerted EPA to his request for approval of the outside activity actually “may have been prepared after the fact” by Schnare.
As Mother Jones reported at the time, “neither his Deputy Ethics Official nor his Assistant Deputy Ethics Official has any record of receiving it or approving this request to engage in outside activity” at the time Schnare claimed it was provided. 
October 17, 2011
University of Virginia attorney Richard Kast submitted an affidavit that complained Shnare had misled the university into thinking he no longer worked at the environmental agency. According to Kast, Schnare had worked on the case while at the government job, and that the outisde-employment. 
“The fact that Dr. Schnare has, for whatever reason, felt compelled to make misleading statements to me about his employment status with the EPA, and demonstrably false statements about his having obtained the requisite approvals to represent ATI in this lawsuit while still being employed by the EPA, is extremely troubling and has destroyed Dr. Schnare's credibility in my mind,” Kast wrote int he affidavit. 
Kast noted that Schare's outside employment waiver, which the EPA had no record of receiving, had a provision that “All services will be performed entirely outside normal duty hours.” According to Kast, “I have received 58 emails from Dr. Schanre from February 17 to September 29, 2011. […] Most of these e-mails were sent between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and all were sent on week days and on days that were not federal holidays.” , 
In Schnare's affidavit, he argued that he had sought prior approval for his work outside of the EPA and that the agency had lost his waiver. He also said that even though his name was on the group's court filings, and he represented it in court, that he was not actually representing the group but rather himself alone. This was something Kast called “preposterous” in court. , 
“I took the case pro bono, so funding of the case was never a question as to where the money came from because there wasn’t any money in the first place. Any effort to suggest I was in the pay of coal or oil interests is without foundation,” Schnare said. 
June 30 – July 1, 2011
David Schnare was a featured speaker (PDF) at the fall Climate Change Conference sponsored by the National Chamber of Commerce and the Virginia Chamber. 
This conference “brought scores of business leaders together to discuss the climate change/environmental issues facing our nation and our state.”
Schnare advocated geo-engineering in his presentation where he explained that through “artificially seeding the atmosphere with non-polluting reflective particles (that slowly descend to the surface of the earth) we can keep the earth’s atmosphere cool as we work to find economically feasible alternatives to carbon-based fuels.” He concludes that “this is a more acceptable concept than severely restricting our economic growth through drastic government regulation.” 
David Schnare spoke at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change where he introduced his paper (.pdf), titled “Climate Change and the Uncomfortable Middle Ground: The Geoengineering and 'No Regrets' Policy Alternative,” which was published by the Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. 
Although the paper does imply that global warming may be due in part to increases in Greenhouse Gases caused by humans, he believes that it is too late to try to reduce our emissions.
The abstract states that our situation “calls for geoengineering as a means to put off the most catastrophic potential effects, at least for a few decades; an immediate reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) where those reductions actually save money (the “no regrets” alternatives); significantly expanded use of and research on low-cost carbon sequestration that removes GHGs from the atmosphere or reduces carbon emissions; and some breathing space within which to further assess some of the global warming theories that, if disproven, would point humanity toward lesser or greater reliance on alternative climate change responses.”
Schnare continues, stating that “A perusal of [the Geophysical Research Letters journal], however, finds well documented, peer- reviewed papers indicating there appears to be some merit to arguments that warming over the past 40 years reflects a normal, if chaotic cycle that may overlay anthropogenic (human caused) warming, but alone explains the majority of observed warming.”
For support, Schanre quotes skeptical scientists such as Petr Chylek, Dennis Avery, Fred Singer and Alan Carlin. The suggested geo-engineering projects are reminiscent of those recommended by Bjorn Lomborg including ocean-based cloud creation, ocean fertilization, and ocean carbon sequesterization. 
Schnare also describes “High Cost Actions” that would be too expensive to implement to reduce carbon emissions including:
- All forms of direct solar power (photovoltaic and CSP)
- Residential and commercial HVAC high efficiency equipment (a LEED element)
- Carbon Capture at coal-fired power plants and carbon-intensive industrial processes
- Re-forestation of crop land
- Medium and high penetration onshore wind power
- Biomass power generation
- Shifting from coal to gas electricity generation
- Hybrid automobiles
September 26, 2007
David Schnare testified before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, referencing his report titled “Responses to Climate Change and their Implications on Preservation and Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay” where he argues that we need to apply geo-engineering to prevent global warming, and that “any investments in reducing greenhouse gases…would be the greatest threat to the [Chesapeake] Bay.” 
“I testified that the oceans will not rise and flood the bay because before that can happen, before the Greenland Ice Sheet can melt, someone is going to employ 'geo-engineering' to turn down the global temperature. They will do that by replicating what volcanos do,” Schnare wrote. “ also testified that the current legislative proposals, and worse, those offered by mainline environmental groups who raise the alarm about potential catastrophies [sic], will not prevent global warming.” 
View his complete testimony, “Responses to Climate Change and their Implications on Preservation and Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay” (PDF), here.
- Energy and Environment Legal Institute (Formerly American Tradition Institute) — General Counsel. 
- Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy — Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment. 
- The Heartland Institute — “Expert.” 
The Hard Look
A Google Scholar search returns one article written by David Schnare on the subject of climate, titled “Climate Change and the Uncomfortable Middle Ground,” published by the Thomas Jefferson Institute. He has not published any articles on climate in peer-reviewed journals.
“What will Trump’s presidency mean for American science policy?” The Guardian, November 17, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/DbUap
David W. Schnare. “Climate Change and the Uncomfortable Middle Ground: The Geoengineering and 'No Regrets' Policy Alternative” (PDF), The Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.
Nick Surgey. “Bankruptcy Filing Shows Arch Coal Funding for Climate Denial Legal Group,” PRWatch, February 24, 2016. Archived March 15, 2016.
Lee Fang. “Attorney Hounding Climate Scientists Is Covertly Funded By Coal Industry,” The Intercept, August 25, 2015. Archived March 16, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
“Narconon Sauna Program – A Scientifically Proven Detox Method,” Narconon. Archived November 23, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/otFlM
David W. Schnare and Martin T. Katzman. Chemical Contamination and Its Victims: Medical Remedies, Legal Redress, and Public Policy, Quorum Books (Jan 1, 1989).
David Schnare. “Emergency Preparedness for Climate Change” (.doc) The Jefferson Journal, March 16, 2008. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
“U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007,” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, December 20, 2007.
David Schnare. “Four Truths about Climate Change,” The Jefferson Journal (.doc), November 3, 2008. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
“Happy Earth Day: Dispelling Environmental Myths and Celebrating Human Achievement,” The Heritage Foundation, April 22, 2014. Archived April 30, 2014.
David Schnare. “Climate Science Policy Needs a 'Team B' (Big Science + Big Government = Bad Science & Policy),” MasterResource, May 18, 2010. Archived April 15, 2014. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/PBdbF
David Schnare. “What Real Scientists Do: Global Warming Science vs. Global Whining Scientists,” MasterResource, March 16, 2010. Archived November 23, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/5VbOm
“Responses to Climate Change and their Implications on Preservation and Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay” (PDF), David Schnare's testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, September 26, 2007. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
“Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Presents: Living with Climate Change” YouTube video uploaded by Community Idea Stations, May 15, 2015. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
Kate Sheppard. “Lawyer in Climate Science Case May Have Broken Ethics Rules,” Mother Jones, October 9, 2012. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/ybt3o
“Virginia Climate Change & Energy Business Summit” (PDF), Yourenergyfuture.org. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
“Annual Report 2008” (PDF), Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
Mitchell Anderson. “Lomborg's Robot Navy,” Desmog, August 10, 2009.
Dan Verano. “Trump Transition Lawyer Has Spent Years Suing For Climate Emails,” BuzzFeed News, December 13, 2016. Archived December 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/DccdF
“BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE CLIMATE SCIENCE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES” (PDF), Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two. Cause No. C2013-4963. Retrieved from Climate Science Defense Fund. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
“2011 10 17 Affidavit of Richard Kast Re David Schnare” (PDF), retrieved from DocumentCloud. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
“WTI Outside Employment Request(1)” (PDF), retrieved from DocumentCloud. Archived.pdf on file at DeSmog.
“Schnare Affidavit Oct 24 2011,” Retrieved from DocumentCloud. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
“2011 01 11 Transcript Motion to Amend Protective Order ATI v UVA & Mann (1),” Retrieved from DocumentCloud. Archived.pdf on file at DeSmog.
- John Mashey. “David Schnare and Jon Riches Mislead Arizona Court to Harass Climate Science Researchers,” DeSmog, March 22, 2016.
- “David W. Schnare,” SourceWatch.
- “David Schanre,” ExxonSecrets.
- Lee Fang. “He Waged Intimidation Campaigns Against Climate Scientists; Now He’s Helping Trump Remake the EPA,” The Intercept, December 9, 2016.