Steve Milloy

From

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 104: Line 104:
<ul>
<ul>
<li> '''The report that started it all: "Choices in Risk Assessment."''' Following the end of the Cold War, the Department of Energy (DOE) faced clean-up costs for its nuclear weapons sites amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. The high costs would largely have been incurred because of EPA standards that essentially would have required the former weapons sites be returned to “Garden of Eden” status. At the time, the DOE took the EPA standards so seriously that it was actually developing essentially a giant vacuum cleaner to suck-up the top layer of  sand at the Nevada Test Site (approximately 5,400 square miles in size), decontaminate it and replace the sand. Overwhelmed by the magnitude of the clean-ups, the Bush administration DOE commissioned Milloy in 1992 to lead an investigation into whether EPA clean-up standards were based on science or politics. Milloy’s team of science and policy experts (called the Regulatory Information Analysis Project) compiled a report titled, “Choices in Risk Assessment: The Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Risk Management Process.” Completed in the fall of 1994, the report concluded that environmental policy was largely based on politics, not science. But when the report was completed and circulated for review within the Clinton administration-run DOE, the report was flagged as politically incorrect and Milloy was ordered by staffers of Clinton appointee Carol Henry (a former EPA staffer) to keep the report secret. Sacrificing his business relationship with the Clinton DOE, Milloy disobeyed the order and released the report, which was subsequently featured in a Wall Street Journal editorial. The attention that “Choices in Risk Assessment” garnered coincided with the Republican takeover of 104th Congress and congressional focus on regulatory reform, vaulting Milloy into the regulatory reform debate about to take place on Capitol Hill. [[Milloy Congressional testimony March 6 1995|Milloy testified before the U.S. Senate about risk assessment in the context of DOE clean-up on March 6, 1995.]] The DOE never wound up spending hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up its weapons sites. No word on what ever happened to the giant NTS vacuum cleaner.
<li> '''The report that started it all: "Choices in Risk Assessment."''' Following the end of the Cold War, the Department of Energy (DOE) faced clean-up costs for its nuclear weapons sites amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. The high costs would largely have been incurred because of EPA standards that essentially would have required the former weapons sites be returned to “Garden of Eden” status. At the time, the DOE took the EPA standards so seriously that it was actually developing essentially a giant vacuum cleaner to suck-up the top layer of  sand at the Nevada Test Site (approximately 5,400 square miles in size), decontaminate it and replace the sand. Overwhelmed by the magnitude of the clean-ups, the Bush administration DOE commissioned Milloy in 1992 to lead an investigation into whether EPA clean-up standards were based on science or politics. Milloy’s team of science and policy experts (called the Regulatory Information Analysis Project) compiled a report titled, “Choices in Risk Assessment: The Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Risk Management Process.” Completed in the fall of 1994, the report concluded that environmental policy was largely based on politics, not science. But when the report was completed and circulated for review within the Clinton administration-run DOE, the report was flagged as politically incorrect and Milloy was ordered by staffers of Clinton appointee Carol Henry (a former EPA staffer) to keep the report secret. Sacrificing his business relationship with the Clinton DOE, Milloy disobeyed the order and released the report, which was subsequently featured in a Wall Street Journal editorial. The attention that “Choices in Risk Assessment” garnered coincided with the Republican takeover of 104th Congress and congressional focus on regulatory reform, vaulting Milloy into the regulatory reform debate about to take place on Capitol Hill. [[Milloy Congressional testimony March 6 1995|Milloy testified before the U.S. Senate about risk assessment in the context of DOE clean-up on March 6, 1995.]] The DOE never wound up spending hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up its weapons sites. No word on what ever happened to the giant NTS vacuum cleaner.
-
<li> '''Prevented the EPA from Stalin-izing statistical significance.'''  In May 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed to update its guidelines for conducting cancer risk assessments. Milloy discovered that the EPA surrepticiously deleted the requirement that epidemiologic data be statistically significant before they can be used to infer cause-and-effect relationships. When JunkScience.com asked the EPA  whether it intended to delete the requirement or whether the omission was innocent, the EPA denied the requirement had been deleted. When other members of the public inquired about the deletion/omission, the EPA denied it. When members of Congress inquired about the deletion, the EPA again denied it. Milloy publicized the issue and and brought the issue before the EPA's Science Advisory Board which rejected the EPA's denials. In its review letter to EPA administrator Carol Browner, the SAB wrote in polite bureaucrat-ese: "There is (in the proposed guidelines) no explicit statement in the proposal that statistical significance should be a basic requirement for determining causality. This lack of an explicit statement has been interpreted as misleading and implying there is a hidden intent to eliminate statistical significance as a consideration in assessing causality. Adding appropriate and specific language concerning statistical significance should rectify this problem." When the [http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/CANCER_GUIDELINES_FINAL_3-25-05.PDF guidelines] were finalized in 2005, the statistical significance requirement had been reinstated in Section 2.2.1.7 Evidence for Causality: "The general evaluation of the strength of the epidemiological evidence reflects consideration not only of the magnitude of reported effects estimates and their statistical significance, but also of the precision of the effects estimates and the robustness of the effects associations."</li>
+
<li> '''Prevented the EPA from Stalin-izing statistical significance.'''  In May 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed to update its guidelines for conducting cancer risk assessments. Milloy discovered that the EPA surrepticiously deleted the requirement that epidemiologic data be statistically significant before they can be used to infer cause-and-effect relationships. When JunkScience.com asked the EPA  whether it intended to delete the requirement or whether the omission was innocent, the EPA denied the requirement had been deleted. When other members of the public inquired about the deletion/omission, the EPA denied it. When members of Congress inquired about the deletion, the EPA again denied it. Milloy [http://www.junksciencearchive.com/news/statistical-significance-comments.html publicized] the issue to great effect and and brought the issue before the EPA's Science Advisory Board which rejected the EPA's denials. In its review letter to EPA administrator Carol Browner, the SAB wrote in polite bureaucrat-ese: "There is (in the proposed guidelines) no explicit statement in the proposal that statistical significance should be a basic requirement for determining causality. This lack of an explicit statement has been interpreted as misleading and implying there is a hidden intent to eliminate statistical significance as a consideration in assessing causality. Adding appropriate and specific language concerning statistical significance should rectify this problem." When the [http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/CANCER_GUIDELINES_FINAL_3-25-05.PDF guidelines] were finalized in 2005, the statistical significance requirement had been reinstated in Section 2.2.1.7 Evidence for Causality: "The general evaluation of the strength of the epidemiological evidence reflects consideration not only of the magnitude of reported effects estimates and their statistical significance, but also of the precision of the effects estimates and the robustness of the effects associations."</li>
<li> '''Ousting the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.''' Right before the January 1999 Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton over whether the President had lied when he denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky, the prestigious'' Journal of the American Medical Association'' (JAMA) was preparing to defend President Clinton by publishing in its January 20, 1999 issue an opinion survey purporting to show that the public didn't consider oral sex to be sexual intercourse. Milloy learned of the study's imminent publication five days ahead of publication (January 14, 1999) and broke the news on JunkScience.com. The Washington Times picked up the story, made inquiries at the American Medical Association, and published on its front page a story titled, "[http://junksciencearchive.com/jan99/wtjama.html AMA Releases Old Survey on Oral Sex Just in  Time for President's Trial]." Within 24 hours, JAMA editor George Lundberg was fired. In firing Lundberg, the American Medical Association stated, "Dr. Lundberg, through his recent actions, has threatened the historic tradition and integrity of the Journal of the American Medical Association by inappropriately and inexcusably interjecting JAMA into a major political debate that has nothing to do with science or medicine. This is unacceptable." but Lundberg had long used JAMA a vehicle to publish [[junk science]]. The study in question, as an example, was a stale, eight-year old study of college students that Lundberg dusted off and rushed to publication in a misquided effort to  involve JAMA in President Clinton's impeachment trial. Lundberg's firing sent shock waves throughout the medical journal community.
<li> '''Ousting the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.''' Right before the January 1999 Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton over whether the President had lied when he denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky, the prestigious'' Journal of the American Medical Association'' (JAMA) was preparing to defend President Clinton by publishing in its January 20, 1999 issue an opinion survey purporting to show that the public didn't consider oral sex to be sexual intercourse. Milloy learned of the study's imminent publication five days ahead of publication (January 14, 1999) and broke the news on JunkScience.com. The Washington Times picked up the story, made inquiries at the American Medical Association, and published on its front page a story titled, "[http://junksciencearchive.com/jan99/wtjama.html AMA Releases Old Survey on Oral Sex Just in  Time for President's Trial]." Within 24 hours, JAMA editor George Lundberg was fired. In firing Lundberg, the American Medical Association stated, "Dr. Lundberg, through his recent actions, has threatened the historic tradition and integrity of the Journal of the American Medical Association by inappropriately and inexcusably interjecting JAMA into a major political debate that has nothing to do with science or medicine. This is unacceptable." but Lundberg had long used JAMA a vehicle to publish [[junk science]]. The study in question, as an example, was a stale, eight-year old study of college students that Lundberg dusted off and rushed to publication in a misquided effort to  involve JAMA in President Clinton's impeachment trial. Lundberg's firing sent shock waves throughout the medical journal community.
<li> '''Debunking dioxin hysteria courtesy of Ben & Jerry's ice cream.''' Prompted by Ben & Jerry's claim on its ice cream packaging that there is no safe level of exposure to dioxin, Milloy and Dr. Michael Gough tested Ben & Jerry's World's Best Vanilla ice cream for dioxin and found that a single scoop contained 200 times the amount of dioxin that the EPA said was safe, thereby debunking dioxin hysteria once and for all. Around the time the study was published, the EPA was proposing to classify dioxin as 10 times more carcinogenic than previously considered. That would have made a single scoop of Ben & Jerry's ice cream contain 2,000 times more dioxin than the EPA considered to be safe.  Milloy testified before the EPA Science Advisory Board about the study, which had also been presented at the poster session of the Dioxin 2000 conference. The study also made the front page of the ''Detroit News'' upon its release. Ben & Jerry's howled about the study and JunkScience.com on its web site for years.
<li> '''Debunking dioxin hysteria courtesy of Ben & Jerry's ice cream.''' Prompted by Ben & Jerry's claim on its ice cream packaging that there is no safe level of exposure to dioxin, Milloy and Dr. Michael Gough tested Ben & Jerry's World's Best Vanilla ice cream for dioxin and found that a single scoop contained 200 times the amount of dioxin that the EPA said was safe, thereby debunking dioxin hysteria once and for all. Around the time the study was published, the EPA was proposing to classify dioxin as 10 times more carcinogenic than previously considered. That would have made a single scoop of Ben & Jerry's ice cream contain 2,000 times more dioxin than the EPA considered to be safe.  Milloy testified before the EPA Science Advisory Board about the study, which had also been presented at the poster session of the Dioxin 2000 conference. The study also made the front page of the ''Detroit News'' upon its release. Ben & Jerry's howled about the study and JunkScience.com on its web site for years.

Revision as of 02:48, 8 April 2011

Contents

Career Summary

Steve Milloy is:

About JunkScience.com

Since April 1, 1996, JunkScience.com has led the fight against junk science, including being named.

Endorsements

The following notable individuals have commented on Milloy's work... so far:

Eminent Scientists and Public Health Heroes

  • Philip Abelson, Phd, Editor, Science, 1962-1984, winner of the National Medal of Science, Co-discoverer of Neptunium: "... Milloy is one of a small group who devotes time, energy and intelligence to the defense of truth and science. His current book deserves widespread reading, quotation and responsive action,"' from the back cover of Junk Science Judo.
  • Donald H. Henderson, M.D., Deans, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 1977-1990, Director, UN Global Smallpox Eradication Program, National Medal of Science: "(Milloy's Silencing Science is) a perceptive and eminently readable book... remarkable insights into the manipulation of science for other than laudable ends," from the back cover of Silencing Science.
  • Frederick Seitz, PhD, First President, National Academy of Sciences: "This valuable book (Junk Science Judo) deals in a thorough manner with one of the serious scientific problems of our times, the intentional distortion of the methods of science in attempts to reach conclusions that are not justified by qualified scientific research...," from the back cover of Junk Science Judo.

Statesmen & Business Leaders

  • Steve Forbes, President and Chief Executive Officer of Forbes: “Green Hell is the `inconvenient truth’ on extremist, growth-killing environmentalism. A must-read for those interested in keeping America free and prosperous," from the back cover of Green Hell. About the Free Enterprise Action Fund: "... it's precept is a sound one," from "Fact and Comment," Forbes, April 24, 2006.
  • Jonathan Hoenig, CapitalistPig Asset Management: "Green Hell... is a brash and gutsy repudiation of the environmental dogma now integrated into almost every aspect of modern life... Throughout this bold, tightly written, well-researched book, Milloy illustrates the overriding goal of the Green movement: Not to preserve nature for man, but to protect nature from man. Green Hell astutely unmasks the dangerous ramifications of that philosophy," from Not Easy — or Smart — Being Green, May 9, 2009.
  • Vaclav Klaus, President of the European Union and President of the Czech Republic: “(Green Hell) describes why the world can’t afford to fall for global warming alarmism and environmental hysteria. Steve Milloy shows how to avoid the environmentalists’ vision of our future,” from the back cover of Green Hell.

Media

  • Barron's. (Green Hell is a) "convincing book," from Big Questions, Five Good Answers, February 5, 2011.
  • Fred Barnes, Executive Editor, the Weekly Standard: “Green Hell explains why Americans can’t afford to fall for Al Gore’s `the debate is over’ line on global warming. While we’re all for the environment, Green Hell explains why we need to oppose the environmentalists,” from the back cover of Green Hell.
  • Peter Foster, National Post (Canada) columnist: "‘Thank Gaia for Steve Milloy…," from "Breaking out of green hell", June 19, 2009.
  • Investor's Business Daily: "... so long as (the corruption of science) continues, it's a threat to future discoveries of real merit as well as to our freedoms. Daylight helps, as does transparency-encouraging critical websites, such as Steve Milloy's junkscience.com," from a A Banner Day for Junk Science, January 6, 2011.
  • Nuclear Street: "Sometimes a guy has to step back, take a long deep breath and reassess everything he thought he knew as fact. Some people conduct this exercise without even thinking, critically examining all that floats their way with the dispassionate eyes of an objective observer. Christopher Columbus did it. Galileo Galilei did it. Charles Darwin did it. Albert Einstein did it. And the world has not been the same since. Now, Steve Milloy does it…," from NS Book Review of Green Hell, July 2, 2009.
  • Rolling Stone. Milloy is a "leading debunker" of global warming alarmism, from the November 17, 2005 issue.
  • John Stossel, correspondent, ABC News and Fox Business News: "I wish Junk Science Judo had been available when I was doing daily consumer reports. It hits the nail on the head about the media's role in health scares and scams. I wish all consumer and reporters would read it," from the back cover of Junk Science Judo.

Miscellaneous

  • Marc Morano, Climate Depot. "(Milloy is) the godfather," from This Man Wants to Convince You Global Warming Is a Hoax, Esquire, March 30, 2010.
  • Dick Morris, Fox News commentator and former political consultant to Bill Clinton: “Regardless of whether you believe global warming is a fraud, the fact is that the current depression, the past spike in oil prices, and the coming technology of electric cars are all going to solve whatever problem exists. Liberals want to use climate change as an excuse to take over the economy and regulate everything and this book exposes their plans,” from the back cover of Green Hell.
  • Penn Gillette of Penn & Teller: "(Silencing Science) is a way funny book written by heroes," from the back cover of Silencing Science.
  • Rich Trzupek, FrontPageMag.com: "...Milloy is a hero. Using his website, junkscience.com, to deliver his message, Milloy has been a key soldier in the front lines of the battle to maintain the kind of healthy skepticism that is a critical component of scientific endeavor. It’s not overstating the case to say that Milloy, along with Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre and Joe Bast’s Heartland Institute, laid the groundwork for an increasingly skeptical public to ask the tough, uncomfortable questions that are making global warming zealots squirm...", from "The Heretics".

Media and Other Activities

Milloy:

  • Has testified on risk assessment and Superfund before the U.S. Congress and has lectured before numerous organizations.
  • Has appeared local, national and international television and radio including:
    • ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings and Good Morning America;
    • CNBC's Kudlow & Co. and SquawkBox;
    • CNN's Crossfire and Talk Back Live;
    • CNNfn;
    • CNN International's Insight;
    • MSNBC's News with Brian Williams;
    • FOX Business Channel's Bulls & Bears, Cavuto, Dagen & Connell and Varney & Co.;
    • FOX News Channel's Glenn Beck, Fox Report with Shepard Smith, Fox and Friends, The O'Reilly Factor, Special Report with Brit Hume, Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, and Your World With Neal Cavuto;
    • Comedy Central's The Daily Show;
    • National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation, the Glenn Beck Program, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Dennis Miller Show and many other national and local television and radio programs.
  • Was a featured panelist at the Wall Street Journal's first ECO:nomics conference in 2008; and
  • Was a member of the judging panel for the 2004 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Journalism Awards: Online Category'.

Memorable Moments (under development)

  • The report that started it all: "Choices in Risk Assessment." Following the end of the Cold War, the Department of Energy (DOE) faced clean-up costs for its nuclear weapons sites amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. The high costs would largely have been incurred because of EPA standards that essentially would have required the former weapons sites be returned to “Garden of Eden” status. At the time, the DOE took the EPA standards so seriously that it was actually developing essentially a giant vacuum cleaner to suck-up the top layer of sand at the Nevada Test Site (approximately 5,400 square miles in size), decontaminate it and replace the sand. Overwhelmed by the magnitude of the clean-ups, the Bush administration DOE commissioned Milloy in 1992 to lead an investigation into whether EPA clean-up standards were based on science or politics. Milloy’s team of science and policy experts (called the Regulatory Information Analysis Project) compiled a report titled, “Choices in Risk Assessment: The Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Risk Management Process.” Completed in the fall of 1994, the report concluded that environmental policy was largely based on politics, not science. But when the report was completed and circulated for review within the Clinton administration-run DOE, the report was flagged as politically incorrect and Milloy was ordered by staffers of Clinton appointee Carol Henry (a former EPA staffer) to keep the report secret. Sacrificing his business relationship with the Clinton DOE, Milloy disobeyed the order and released the report, which was subsequently featured in a Wall Street Journal editorial. The attention that “Choices in Risk Assessment” garnered coincided with the Republican takeover of 104th Congress and congressional focus on regulatory reform, vaulting Milloy into the regulatory reform debate about to take place on Capitol Hill. Milloy testified before the U.S. Senate about risk assessment in the context of DOE clean-up on March 6, 1995. The DOE never wound up spending hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up its weapons sites. No word on what ever happened to the giant NTS vacuum cleaner.
  • Prevented the EPA from Stalin-izing statistical significance. In May 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed to update its guidelines for conducting cancer risk assessments. Milloy discovered that the EPA surrepticiously deleted the requirement that epidemiologic data be statistically significant before they can be used to infer cause-and-effect relationships. When JunkScience.com asked the EPA whether it intended to delete the requirement or whether the omission was innocent, the EPA denied the requirement had been deleted. When other members of the public inquired about the deletion/omission, the EPA denied it. When members of Congress inquired about the deletion, the EPA again denied it. Milloy publicized the issue to great effect and and brought the issue before the EPA's Science Advisory Board which rejected the EPA's denials. In its review letter to EPA administrator Carol Browner, the SAB wrote in polite bureaucrat-ese: "There is (in the proposed guidelines) no explicit statement in the proposal that statistical significance should be a basic requirement for determining causality. This lack of an explicit statement has been interpreted as misleading and implying there is a hidden intent to eliminate statistical significance as a consideration in assessing causality. Adding appropriate and specific language concerning statistical significance should rectify this problem." When the guidelines were finalized in 2005, the statistical significance requirement had been reinstated in Section 2.2.1.7 Evidence for Causality: "The general evaluation of the strength of the epidemiological evidence reflects consideration not only of the magnitude of reported effects estimates and their statistical significance, but also of the precision of the effects estimates and the robustness of the effects associations."
  • Ousting the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Right before the January 1999 Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton over whether the President had lied when he denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky, the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) was preparing to defend President Clinton by publishing in its January 20, 1999 issue an opinion survey purporting to show that the public didn't consider oral sex to be sexual intercourse. Milloy learned of the study's imminent publication five days ahead of publication (January 14, 1999) and broke the news on JunkScience.com. The Washington Times picked up the story, made inquiries at the American Medical Association, and published on its front page a story titled, "AMA Releases Old Survey on Oral Sex Just in Time for President's Trial." Within 24 hours, JAMA editor George Lundberg was fired. In firing Lundberg, the American Medical Association stated, "Dr. Lundberg, through his recent actions, has threatened the historic tradition and integrity of the Journal of the American Medical Association by inappropriately and inexcusably interjecting JAMA into a major political debate that has nothing to do with science or medicine. This is unacceptable." but Lundberg had long used JAMA a vehicle to publish junk science. The study in question, as an example, was a stale, eight-year old study of college students that Lundberg dusted off and rushed to publication in a misquided effort to involve JAMA in President Clinton's impeachment trial. Lundberg's firing sent shock waves throughout the medical journal community.
  • Debunking dioxin hysteria courtesy of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Prompted by Ben & Jerry's claim on its ice cream packaging that there is no safe level of exposure to dioxin, Milloy and Dr. Michael Gough tested Ben & Jerry's World's Best Vanilla ice cream for dioxin and found that a single scoop contained 200 times the amount of dioxin that the EPA said was safe, thereby debunking dioxin hysteria once and for all. Around the time the study was published, the EPA was proposing to classify dioxin as 10 times more carcinogenic than previously considered. That would have made a single scoop of Ben & Jerry's ice cream contain 2,000 times more dioxin than the EPA considered to be safe. Milloy testified before the EPA Science Advisory Board about the study, which had also been presented at the poster session of the Dioxin 2000 conference. The study also made the front page of the Detroit News upon its release. Ben & Jerry's howled about the study and JunkScience.com on its web site for years.
  • Debunking low-level radiation hysteria courtesy of the U.S. Capitol Building. To expose and debunk low-level radiation fears and over-regulation, Milloy and Dr. Michael Gough measured levels of ionizing radiation emitted in the U.S. Capitol and Library of Congress buildings. Dose rates measured exceeded background radiation levels, ranging as high as 30 microrems per hour. This rate is: (1) up to 550 percent greater than the typical dose rate “at the fence line” around nuclear power plants; (2) about 13,000 times greater than the average individual dose rate from worldwide nuclear power production and the Chernobyl accident; and (3) exceeds the dose rate associated with the radiation protection standards proposed for the Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste facility by as much as 65 times. Cancer risk for these exposure levels, based on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model of carcinogenesis, qualified the U.S. Capitol Building as a Superfund (toxic waste) site under U.S. EPA guidelines. Based on a letter transmitting these results to Yucca Mountain opponent Sen. Harry Reid, the Architect of the Capitol conducted a survey of the U.S. Capitol Building, pronouncing the building safe. The story was reported in Roll Call (April 16, 2001) and Milloy responded (April 23, 2001). Milloy was also later interviewed on FOX News Channel's Special Report in August 2005.
  • Invented world's first global thermometer. TBD.
  • 'LIve Earth' invasion and first JunkScience.com air raid. Milloy engineered an invasion of Al Gore's "Live Earth" global warming concert on July 7, 2007. Under the name "DemandDebate.com" (so-called because Al Gore famously insisted that the debate over global warming was "over"), Milloy sponsored a group of free-market oriented college students (BureauCrash) to attend the "Live Earth" concert to spread the DemandDebate.com message. The students wore DemandDebate.com T-shirts bearing the slogan "I'm more worried about the intellectual climate." The students took inflatable globe beach balls, bearing the "intellectual climate" phrasing, into the event and let them loose. On live TV coverage of the event and while rock bands played, the DemandDebate.com beachballs were visibly tossed around the crowd, making it into the mosh pit and even on stage. When Al Gore came out to address the crowd, an air plane bearing a banner reading "Don't believe Al Gore. DemandDebate.com" flew over the stadium. The pilot, listening to the event on his satellite radio, revved his engine the moment Al Gore began to speak. Another aerial banner reading "Don't trust Al Gore. DemandDebate.com" also flew in what can be regarded as the first anti-junk science air raid in history. The air raid was noted by media including CNN, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Rush Limbaugh (July 9, 2007 radio broadcast). According to a report in The Record (Bergen County, NJ), "Live Earth" headliner John Mayer "... spent most of his post-performance press conference angrily wondering why people would buy into (DemandDebate.com's) line of reasoning...."
  • "Carbon criminal" campaign infuriates a U.S. Senator and touches a CEO. The 111th Congress’ push for cap-and-trade was heavily lobbied by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership – a coalition of big businesses and environmental activist groups. JunkScience.com developed its "Carbon Criminal” campaign featuring “Wanted” posters for 11 of the USCAP member company CEOs. JunkScience.com also commissioned a bobblehead of Exelon Corp. CEO John Rowe as the “Carbon Bandit.” Rowe had publicly boasted of the billions of dollars in windfall profits Exelon anticipated making from cap-and-trade. Rowe was presented with the bobblehead after his testimony before the Senate for Environment and Public Works. Weeks later, EPW Chairman Barbara Boxer attacked JunkScience.com’s “Carbon Criminal” campaign in a December 14, 2009 speech on the Senate floor. During a March speech (video/transcript) at the American Enterprise Institute in which he surprisingly called for the 112th Congress to take no action on energy, Rowe set his bobblehead on the speaker’s podium, and waved it around calling it a “cherished memento.” Did the bobblehead help Rowe re-think his cap-and-trade rentseeking? Only the Carbon Bandit knows.

Education

Milloy holds:

  • a B.A. in Natural Sciences, Johns Hopkins University;
  • a Master of Health Sciences (Biostatistics), Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health;
  • a Juris Doctorate, University of Baltimore; and
  • a Master of Laws (Securities regulation) from the Georgetown University Law Center.
Personal tools