Ideological activists masquerading in lab coats

Almost immediately, environmental organizations such as 350.org and Greenpeace began organizing their attack on Tillerson and his nomination in the media and over social media, questioning his credentials, relationship with Russia, and position on climate change, alleging that Tillerson would be detrimental for international relationships and serve the interest of corporations and not the American people.

Tillerson’s biggest foe, however, comes from a small well-funded source that is infamous within the walls of Capitol Hill: The Union of Concerned Scientists. The organization has now launched a campaign against Rex Tillerson’s nomination
, being quoted in news outlets from the Washington Post to The New York Times, raising the question: Is UCS a scientific organization or an advocacy group?The Union of Concerned Scientists is a group based in Massachusetts that has been around nearly 40 years. But unlike other scientific associations, such as the Journal of the American Psychological Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists is as much a policy institute as it is one devoted to science. However, the company has a staff containing more policy wonks than scientists. In fact, the Union of Concerned Scientists publishes reports under their own brand, with more than 30 publications in 2016 alone, rather than in peer-reviewed academic outlets, which is a questionable and highly unusual publication process for scientists.As an editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette put it in 2004, the UCS is made up of “radicals in lab coats.”All of this would be academic except that this group has played a major role in orchestrating campaigns to tighten regulation on industry, particularly oil and gas producers, by depicting companies in exaggerated ways that often undermine their actual value. Consequently, their actions mislead investors and roil markets. For instance, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, the Union of Concerned Scientists were in attendance at a meeting held by the Rockefeller Family Fund, which gathered environmental activists, lawyers, and policy experts to outline a campaign against Exxon Mobil. UCS even hosted a webinar on the “Exxon Knew” campaign, complete with a panelist of reporters and policy experts. The notable absence, of course, is any scientific authority.Even more puzzling, however, the UCS sent a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, along with the Rockefeller Family and other activists, asking the SEC to investigate Exxon Mobil and its disclosures. It’s peculiar and certainly out of the norm for a group of scientists to write to the SEC in opposition to a single company. But, almost on cue, news broke that Exxon Mobil was being investigated by the SEC, and as a direct result, Exxon Mobil’s stock dropped. As a former executive in the energy pricing industry, I must admit that this is a clever strategy at a time when the alternative-energy market has sputtered, despite efforts by groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists to clear a viable path for that market.

Anyone doubting the group’s political DNA need only consider some of the issues it has engaged in over the recent years.

In 2005, at the end of President George W. Bush’s first term, UCS published a report claiming to document the Republican administration’s misuse of science, accusing the administration of “manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions.” A report from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy officially condemned the report, calling it “a distortion.” Yet in the nearly eight years of the Obama administration, the left-leaning group has issued no such reports, despite controversies in which the administration has been accused of putting political needs ahead of scientific judgment.

Even more, consider this: UCS, as an organization, has given tens of thousands of dollars in political donations to elected officials and candidates running on federal, state and local levels, according to opensecrets.org. But a cursory review of the website turned up no contributions to Republicans from the group. In recent years, the group’s obsession has been proving that the fossil-fuel industry was behind a vast conspiracy to fool scientists, academics, businessmen, regulators, politicians and even ordinary citizens around the globe that climate change was a fraud — as real as, say, a unicorn.

But that theory is proving to be a flop. The attorney general who filed to investigate Exxon Mobil under the premise that it had engaged in so-called climate fraud abandoned those efforts after it became clear that they were futile. But now, their sites are set on Rex Tillerson as a way to resurrect their debunked theory about Exxon Mobil, noting the Tillerson’s hearing “should be a public trial on Exxon’s history of studying climate.”

In my view, by even suggesting that UCS has the rigors of science behind it, the group casts itself as an authority that is beyond the scrutiny. But the truth is that Union of Concerned Scientists is just another garden-variety activist group — and it just doesn’t want anyone to know.

John Burnett is a financial service executive with over 20 years of experience in risk management, operations, governance and compliance at some of the world’s top financial services and business information companies; such as, Citi, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and S&P Global. Follow him on Twitter @IamJohnBurnett Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.