May 12, 2008


Taking Out the Junk (Science) (Bill Steigerwald, 5/12/08,

When Al Gore and his global warming alarmists take over, one of the first citizens they'll slap in a prison and charge with crimes against the (green) state will be Steven J. Milloy, founder and publisher of the popular Web site

Q: What is and what’s its purpose?

A: Junk Science is a Web site I started about 12 years ago and the purpose is to spotlight bad science that is being used to advance special agendas -- like activist agendas, environmental agendas, regulators, politicians, trial lawyers, companies that are using bad science to sell products to consumers.

Q: What’s the most important example of junk science or bad science that needs to be exposed because of the danger it poses to our economy or our freedoms?

A: Well, the most important junk science issue right now is global warming because it’s going to affect our freedoms and it’s going to affect our economy. It’s all based on the unproven notion that human emissions of carbon dioxide are affecting global climate. As a matter of fact, just last week some U.N. scientists said, “You know, there’s really no global warming that’s going to be occurring for the next 10 years, because Mother Nature is driving the climate.” Of course, the big secret here is that Mother Nature always drives the climate, no matter what humans are doing. There’s much at risk. Global warming regulation means higher energy costs, and it means reduced freedom. Remember that Al Gore wants you to take colder showers, dry your clothes outside, turn the heat down, turn the air-conditioning down, drive less -- they want to impact your lifestyle. Now Congress has passed a law saying you’ve got to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs, which a lot of people don’t like -- they contain mercury; they’re more expensive; they don’t provide any environmental improvement. Yet incandescent light bulbs are going to be phased out in four years. They are reducing consumer choice.

Q: What are your politics and how do they tie in with your junk-science debunking efforts?

A: Politically, I am a libertarian. I believe in individual freedom and limited government. I’m against junk science because junk science reduces individual freedom and increases the role of government in our lives. It’s pretty straightforward. No one complains about government using sound science to expand its role and to actually produce benefits. But junk science, which doesn’t produce any benefits, just results in higher costs and reduced freedom. We object to that.

Q: Is there a smaller example of junk science that is harmful?

A: Global warming is obviously the up-and-coming issue. The biggest and probably the most lethal form of junk science so far has been the DDT controversy. Tens of millions of people in malaria regions have died needlessly because the U.S. -- based on junk science -- banned DDT in 1972 and the ban was promptly exported around the world. It wasn’t until just two years ago or so that the World Health Organization rolled back its ban on DDT -- or at least said they did. DDT use really hasn’t expanded all that much and millions continue to die. That’s the environmentalists’ handiwork and that’s just the warm-up for what’s going to happen with global warming.

Darwinism has been quite a bit more lethal.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 12, 2008 6:29 AM

Meanwhile, Maverick said today, "We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge."

He called for capping total U.S CO2 emissions nationwide at 2005 levels by the year 2012, at 1990 levels by 2020, with the aim of cutting emissions by 2050 by at least 60 percent of the 1990 levels.


Posted by: Gideon7 at May 12, 2008 12:59 PM

...millions continue to die. That’s the environmentalists’ handiwork...

That is the point. The environmentalists believe humans are destroying mother earth, their only regret is the wrong millions continue to die.

Posted by: ic at May 12, 2008 1:09 PM

The global warming issue is where McCain really ticks me off. If his plan was a revenue neutral tax on carbon based fuels I'd be alright with him, even though more evidence and more scientists are backing away from anthropogenic based theories. If he'd just come out and explain how the US carbon emissions are growing slower than those of the countries that signed Kyoto I'd be happy. His run toward the middle is going a bit too far.

Posted by: Patrick H at May 12, 2008 1:40 PM

What does the good policy of reducing emissions have to do with warming? It's like pretending there were WMD in Iraq.

Posted by: oj at May 12, 2008 2:28 PM