Fuel costs

[JohnEd]

JR,

I am sorry it took me so long to research this answer.  I only a few minutes ago read your post about what Milloy said.  I regrett I new what i would find when I noted that he is a FOX NEWS contributor.  Now sooner or later one of these guys is going to show up LAGIT simply as a matter of statistical probility, but this isn't the case and this isn't the day.  Steven Milloy is a registered lobbiest and front man for Phillip Morris Tobacco, EXXON OIL, and other equally reputable concerns.  He seems ready to "DEBUNK" anything for a buck and is the originator of the term "JUNK SCIENCE".  Global warming, asbestosis, DDT and a raft of other threarts to humanity have been debunked by him and found to be harmless or just a pack of lies.  This guy actually has a whole pocketfull of really prestigious degrees form MAJOR US Universities.  He is also lashed up with the LIBRETARIANS and they have never stopped pushing for the abolishment of the Fedurale Gummint.  This guy is like Rush....he is so bad and has put out so much crap that one hardly knows where to start so I won't.  There appear to be web sites devoted to exposing this guy as an embarassment to lagitimate scientists across the globe.  They are giving this guy awards for being evil cause there is no excuse for a man this educated putting out this much unadulterated trash.  Can you or any expect a paid schilll for EXXON to say anything kind or constructive about energy conservation legislation?  Can you?  There now, I feel better.  Got Milk?

This is what I found with my first search:


Steven J. Milloy is the "junk science" commentator for FoxNews.com and runs the Web site junkscience.com, which is dedicated to debunking what Milloy labels "faulty scientific data and analysis."

Among the topics Milloy has addressed are what he believes to be false claims regarding DDT, global warming, Alar, breast implants, secondhand smoke, ozone depletion, and mad cow disease.[1] Milloy also runs CSRWatch.com, which monitors and criticizes the corporate social responsibility movement. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, which hosted the JunkScience.com site. He is currently an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Milloy is head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with former tobacco executive Tom Borelli. He also operates the Advancement of Sound Science Center, a non-profit organization which is critical of environmental science, from his home in Potomac, Maryland. Milloy has authored four books.

Milloy's close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming.[2][3][4][5]

Contents [hide]
1 Educational background
2 Career
3 Junk science
3.1 Secondhand smoke
3.1.1 Links to tobacco industry
3.2 The environment
3.3 Climate Change
3.4 U.S. Surgeon General
3.5 DDT
3.6 Asbestos and the World Trade Center
3.7 Food safety
3.8 Evolution
4 Registration as a lobbyist
5 Corporate activism
6 Responses
7 Books
8 Notes
9 See also
10 External links
10.1 Milloy's Websites
10.2 Tobacco Document Archives
10.3 News coverage



[edit] Educational background
Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctor from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.[6]


[edit] Career
According to his website, in 1994, Milloy was project leader of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy. The Cato Institute, where he was listed as an adjunct scholar published his work from 1995 to 2005. Milloy began his criticism of "Junk science" as president of the Environmental Policy Analysis Network in 1996. In March 1997, Milloy became president of the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which later became the Advancement of Sound Science Center.[7] He has been a correspondent for Fox News since 2002.


[edit] Junk science
Main article: Junk science
Milloy defines junk science as "faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas." According to Milloy, "the junk science 'mob' includes: The MEDIA, [who] may use junk science for sensational headlines and programming...PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS, [who] may use junk science to bamboozle juries into awarding huge verdicts," and others.[8] Milloy claims that there are examples of "junk science" which have been identified as wholly without foundation; examples include two papers published in Science.[9] An editorial in the American Journal of Public Health noted that "... attacking the science underlying difficult public policy decisions with the label of 'junk' has become a common ploy for those opposed to regulation. One need only peruse JunkScience.com to get a sense of the long list of public health issues for which research has been so labeled."[10]


[edit] Secondhand smoke
Milloy has criticized research linking secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer, claiming that "the vast majority of studies reported no statistical association."[11] In 1993, Milloy dismissed an Environmental Protection Agency report linking secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer as "a joke." Five years later Milloy claimed vindication after a federal court criticized the EPA's conclusions. However, the court's finding against the EPA was overturned on appeal.

When the British Medical Journal published a meta-analysis confirming a link in 1997, Milloy wrote, "Of the 37 studies, only 7—less than 19 percent—reported statistically significant increases in lung cancer incidence... Meta-analysis of the secondhand smoke studies was a joke when EPA did it in 1993. And it remains a joke today."[12] When another researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "... must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"[3]


[edit] Links to tobacco industry
While at FoxNews.com, Milloy has continued to criticize claims that secondhand tobacco smoke causes cancer.[2] However, with the release of confidential tobacco industry documents as part of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, the objectivity of Milloy's stance on secondhand smoke has been questioned. Based on this documentation, journalists Paul D. Thacker and George Monbiot, as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists and others, have contended that Milloy is a paid advocate for the tobacco industry.[2][4][13]

Milloy's junkscience.com website was reviewed and revised by a public relations firm hired by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.[14] Milloy also worked as executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a "front group" established in 1993 by Philip Morris and its public relations firm "to expand and assist Philip Morris in its efforts with issues in targeted states."[2][15][16] Philip Morris memos describe "utilizing TASSC as a tool in targeted legislative battles";[17] a 1994 Philip Morris memo listed TASSC among its "Tools to Affect Legislative Decisions".[18] According its 1997 annual report, TASSC "sponsored" junkscience.com.[19]

The New Republic reported that Milloy, who is presented by Fox News as an independent journalist, was under contract to provide consulting services to Philip Morris through the end of 2005.[2] In 2000 & 2001, for example, Milloy received a total of $180,000 in payments from Philip Morris for consulting services.[20] A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."[2] Milloy's association with the Cato Institute has since ended; however, as of January 2008, he continues to write for FoxNews.com, where he is described as a "junk science expert."[21] Monbiot wrote: "Even after Fox News was told about the money [Milloy] had been receiving from Philip Morris and Exxon, it continued to employ him, without informing its readers about his interests."[22] Thacker wrote:

Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further.[2]

The American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation similarly stated that "...Milloy has made it his life's work to deny scientific studies conducted and published by the world's most reputable and credible scientific agencies... and label their objective evidence as 'junk science'. Milloy has a lucrative and lengthy relationship with the tobacco industry."[23]


[edit] The environment
Milloy has been critical of the Clean Air Act, acknowledging that it has improved air quality but arguing that it has forced Americans to "surrender many freedoms." Milloy argued that "air pollution in the U.S. was more of an aesthetic than a public health problem [in 1970]. That is even more the case today."[24]

Milloy maintains the position that "The ozone hole is another area where knowledge is insufficient to draw conclusions. There is no "hole," but only a thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer over the South Pole. The size and depth of the "hole" varies from year to year. No one knows why ... it is unclear what effect CFC releases have had on the Earth's ozone layer."[25]


[edit] Climate Change
Milloy has consistently argued from the position of a global warming skeptic that human activity has little impact on climate change and that regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions are unwarranted and harmful to business interests. He has recently offered a prize of $125 000 to anyone who can "prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming," stating that "JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any."[26]

In 2004, when the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was released by the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee, Milloy wrote that the report "pretty much debunks itself."[27] Milloy's assertions were disputed by the lead author of the study,[5] as well as by climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who criticized Milloy for taking "one result out of context and present[ing] unwarranted conclusions, knowing that a lay audience will not easily recognise their fallacy."[28]

In April 1998 Milloy was part of the Global Climate Science Team (GCST), which was founded in part by ExxonMobil to work out a strategy to influence the media to "understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science."[4] The Union of Concerned Scientists reported that Milloy helped develop the GCST action plan, which involved "invest[ing] millions of dollars to manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global warming."[4] In 2005, it was reported that non-profit organizations operating out of Milloy's home, and in some cases employing no staff, have received large payments from ExxonMobil during his tenure with Fox News.[5][2][4] A Fox News spokesperson stated that Milloy is "... affiliated with several not-for-profit groups that possibly may receive funding from Exxon, but he certainly does not receive funding directly from Exxon."[5]

Milloy is the Executive Director of DemandDebate.com,[29] an organization that seeks to eliminate what it calls "bias" in environmental education.[30] A Competitive Enterprise Institute press release says he "coordinated" the group's activities at the recent Live Earth concert in New York, at which a plane circled the event pulling a banner reading, "DON'T BELIEVE AL GORE — DEMAND DEBATE.COM."[31]

[JohnEd]

CONTINUED

[edit] U.S. Surgeon General
In 1998, Milloy, writing on behalf of TASSC, co-wrote an article which called for the abolition of the position of United States Surgeon General. "We have not had a surgeon general for three years. Has anyone noticed? Is anyone's health at risk," asked the authors.[32][33]


[edit] DDT
Milloy has campaigned against the 1972 ban on non-public-health uses of DDT in the United States and in favour of wider use of DDT against malaria, which he claims could be largely eliminated if DDT were used more aggressively. He has been particularly critical of Rachel Carson, who, he wrote, "misrepresented the existing science on bird reproduction and was wrong about DDT causing cancer."[34]

Milloy's junkscience.com web site features The Malaria Clock: A Green Eco-Imperialist Legacy of Death,[35] which he claims counts up the approximate number of new malaria cases and deaths in the world, most of which he says could have been prevented by the use of DDT. As of June 2007, Milloy's clock stands at more than 94 million dead, 90% of whom are said to have been expectant mothers and children under five years of age. "Infanticide on this scale appears without parallel in human history," writes Milloy. "This is not ecology. This is not conservation. This is genocide."

Critics have argued that the the clock holds Carson "responsible for more deaths than malaria has caused in total,"[36] a charge that a footnote at the bottom of the malaria clock webpage seems to acknowledges, stating: "Note that some of these cases would have occurred irrespective of DDT use. Note also that, while enormously influential, the US ban did not immediately terminate global DDT use and that developing world malaria mortality increased over time rather than instantly leaping to the estimated value of 2,700,000 deaths per year. However, certain in the knowledge that even one human sacrificed on the altar of green misanthropy is infinitely too many, I let stand the linear extrapolation of numbers from an instant start on the 1st of the month following this murderous ban."[35]

Responding to an opinion column relying on Milloy's arguments, parasitologists Alan Lymbery and Andrew Thompson wrote, in 2004:

The use of DDT...is not banned for public health use in most areas of the world where malaria is endemic. Indeed, DDT was recently exempted from a proposed worldwide ban on organophosphate [sic] chemicals. One of the important factors in declining use of DDT was decreasing effectiveness and greater costs because of the development of resistance in mosquitoes. Resistance was largely caused by the indiscriminate, widespread use of DDT to control agricultural pests in the tropics. To blame a reduction in DDT usage for the death of 10-30 million people from malaria is not just simple-minded, it is demonstrably wrong.[37]

In 2006, following a press release by the World Health Organization recommending more extensive use of indoor residual spraying with DDT and other pesticides, Milloy wrote, "It's a relief that the WHO has finally come to its senses."[38]


[edit] Asbestos and the World Trade Center
On September 14, 2001, three days after terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center, Milloy wrote that the World Trade Center towers might have stood longer, preventing many casualties, had the use of asbestos fire-resistant lagging not been discontinued during the Towers' construction.[39] Milloy's article reported that, "In 1971, New York City banned the use of asbestos in spray fireproofing. At that time, asbestos insulating material had only been sprayed up to the 64th floor of the World Trade Center towers," and cited an expert who questioned the efficacy of the asbestos-free lagging that was used on the steel in the upper floors.

Advocates for banning asbestos were highly critical of the article,[39] questioning his motives and disputing his conclusions. The International Ban Asbestos Secretariat charged him with "insensitivity that is hard to fathom."[40]

Laurie Kazan-Allen of the Secretariat wrote:

It takes a certain kind of person to capitalize on a human catastrophe such as the attacks on the World Trade Centre. While the rest of us remained desperate for news, some were plotting how these events could be used to maximum advantage. ... The fact that Milloy chose to make this and other such statements as ground zero was still smouldering shows an insensitivity that is hard to fathom. What decent human being could do anything during those early days but watch and wait as the emergency services worked 24/7 to locate survivors?[41]


[edit] Food safety
Responding to criticism of the safety of the food product Quorn by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Milloy accused CSPI of having an undisclosed relationship with Quorn's main competitor, Gardenburger. Writing for FoxNews.com, Milloy said that "CSPI appears to have an unsavory relationship with Quorn competitor, Gardenburger" and called the CSPI's complaints "unscrupulous shrieking".[42] Gardenburger denied Milloy's accusation, stating that Milloy's allegation of an "unsavory relationship" was "untrue and groundless".[43]


[edit] Evolution
Milloy's views on evolution are as follows:

Explanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture. There is no scientific way — i.e., no experiment or other means of reliable study — for explaining how humans developed. Without a valid scientific method for proving a hypothesis, no indisputable explanation can exist.

The process of evolution can be scientifically demonstrated in some lower life forms, but this is a far cry from explaining how humans developed.

That said, some sort of evolutionary process seems most likely in my opinion. But there will probably always be enough uncertainty in any explanation of human evolution to give critics plenty of room for doubt.[44]


[edit]

[JohnEd]

AND THE REST

Registration as a lobbyist
The United States Senate Lobby Filing Disclosure Program lists Milloy was as a registered lobbyist for the EOP Group for the years 1998–2000.[45] The guidebook Washington Representatives also listed him as a lobbyist for the EOP Group in 1996.[46] The EOP Group's clients include the American Crop Protection Association (pesticides), the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute (fossil and nuclear energy), Fort Howard Corp. (a paper manufacturer) and the National Mining Association. Milloy himself was personally registered as a lobbyist for Monsanto and the International Food Additives Council.[47][23]

Milloy denies ever lobbying, and in a 1998 email response to his registration as a lobbyist under EOP he wrote:

I do not lobby for ANYONE. Before I became executive director of TASSC, I did some technical consulting for a D.C. firm which had the policy of registering all its employees and consultants as lobbyists (whether or not they lobbied) pursuant to a new law passed in 1995. I am aware of the listing and have asked it to be corrected since I no longer work for that firm.[48]


[edit] Corporate activism
Milloy and former tobacco executive Tom Borelli run a mutual fund called the Free Enterprise Action Fund (FEAF). The fund has criticised companies that voluntarily adopt high environmental standards. Through the platform of the FEAF, Milloy has criticized a number of other corporations for adopting environmental initiatives:

The FEAF criticized Microsoft for abandoning the use of PVC in its packing materials.[49]
Milloy accused the Business Roundtable, a pro-business organization of CEO's, of being "silent about current threats to business", adding, "Last September, we warned 18 member company CEOs participating in the BRT's 'sustainable growth' initiative to stop wasting corporate resources."[50]
Milloy and Borelli argued that General Electric is harming its shareholders by launching a program to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. They also accused G.E. of ignoring the input of global warming skeptic groups such as the Cato Institute and the oil-industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute in forming their environmental policy.[51]
FEAF has been criticised by investment analyst Chuck Jaffe as being "an advocacy group in search of assets." Jaffe concludes "Strip away the rhetoric, and you're getting a very expensive, underperforming index fund, while Milloy and his partner Thomas Borelli get a platform for raising their pet issues."[52]

Similarly, Daniel Gross, in a Slate magazine article, wrote that FEAF "seems to be a lobbying enterprise masquerading as a mutual fund." Gross noted that Milloy and Tom Borelli, the former head of corporate scientific affairs for Philip Morris, lack any money management experience; he also noted that FEAF had badly underperformed the S&P 500 during its first 10 months of existence. Gross concluded that "...in the short term, it looks like Borelli and Milloy are essentially paying the fund for the privilege of using it as a platform to broadcast their views on corporate governance, global warming, and a host of other issues."[53]


[edit] Responses
Milloy and Borelli have defended Exxon against criticism for funding global warming sceptics and others, though without declaring their own financial interest. In September 2006, Milloy's Junkscience.com site reproduced the following excerpt of a piece by Borelli published in Townhall.com, criticising the British Royal Society:

Battle for the boardroom — After over 200 years of independence, the British are still trying to direct U.S. public policy. The Royal Society — the British equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences — recently admonished Exxon Mobil for supporting organizations that question the link between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.



Notwithstanding the offensive nature of a prestigious organization attempting to silence scientific debate, the Royal Society's letter sheds light on the larger effort employed by agents of the Left to shut-down corporate support for pro-growth political organizations, politicians and policies. By cutting-off the financial supply lines for free-market thought and policies, these agents — labor unions, NGOs, the media — hope to dominate public debate and control public opinion. As these tactics continue to meet with success, liberal policies and politicians will gain a huge strategic advantage.



For those of us interested in promoting pro-growth ideas, loss of corporate support represents a huge threat to sound public policy. There is too much money, power and influence wielded by companies and free-market advocates can't afford to give up that high ground to the Left.[54]


[edit] Books
Milloy has written four books:

Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams, Cato Institute, 2001, ISBN 1930865120
Silencing Science, Cato Institute, 1999, ISBN 1882577728 (with Michael Gough)
Science Without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research, Cato Institute, 1996, ISBN 1882577345
Science-Based Risk Assessment: A Piece of the Superfund Puzzle, National Environmental Policy Institute, 1995, ISBN 0964746301
Milloy's junkscience.com site lists positive comments, derived from prepublication reviews of his books Silencing Science and Junk Science Judo, published on the back cover (blurb) of those books. Those cited on junkscience.com are the late Philip Abelson, editor of Science from 1962 to 1984, and D.A. Henderson, Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health from 1977 to 1990. Abelson's review states "Milloy is one of a small group who devotes time, energy and intelligence to the defense of the truth of science."

Others with favourable reviews cited in the blurb of Junk Science Judo are Ronald Bailey, Frederick Seitz and John Stossel.

GUYS, I am sorry but the numbers associated with the notes did not transfer for some inexplicable reason.  Just start numbering them from the top and it works out.  I hope I am not labeled a careless abuser of the truth and the American way for this failure that wasn't mine.

[edit] Notes
^ Milloy's Website, junkscience.com, accessed 20 Sept 2006.
^ a b c d e f g h "Smoked Out: Pundit For Hire", published in The New Republic, accessed 20 Sept 2006. Also available without subscription at FreePress.net.
^ a b PRWatch.org article detailing Milloy's ties to the tobacco industry, accessed 23 Sept 2006.
^ a b c d e Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science. Union of Concerned Scientists (3 January 2007). Retrieved on 2007-01-11.
^ a b c d Some Like It Hot, Mother Jones article on Milloy
^ Milloy's history and C.V., from his website junkscience.com, accessed 20 Sept 2006.
^ [1].
^ Junk science?. junkscience.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-20.
^ Steven Milloy (December 22, 2005). A Junk Science Christmas Carol. FoxNews.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-22.
^ Samet JM, Burke TA (2001). "Turning science into junk: the tobacco industry and passive smoking". American journal of public health 91 (11): 1742-4. PMID 11684591. 
^ Secondhand Smokescreen, By Steven Milloy, March 9, 2001
^ Secondhand Joking, by Steven Milloy
^ PRWatch.com article describing the financial links between Milloy and the tobacco industry, accessed 20 Sept 2006.
^ Activity Report, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., December 1996, describing input from R.J.R. Tobacco's P.R. firm into Milloy's junkscience website. From the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library at the University of California, San Francisco. Accessed 5 October 2006.
^ Philip Morris 1994 Budget Draft, available at the Philip Morris Document Archive. Accessed 5 October 2006.
^ Ong EK, Glantz SA (2000). "Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study". Lancet 355 (9211): 1253-9. PMID 10770318. 
^ Letter from Margery Kraus, president of TASSC, to Vic Han, Director of Communications for Philip Morris, dated 23 September 1993. Accessed 5 October 2006.
^ Philip Morris Corporate Affairs Budget Presentation, 1994, from the Philip Morris Document Archive. Accessed 5 October 2006.
^ Annual Report - 1997, Steven Milloy, January 7th, 1998. Document accessed at Legacy Tobacco Documents Library on July 7, 2007.
^ Philip Morris budget for "Strategy and Social Responsibility", detailing $180,000 in payments to Steven Milloy (pp. 13 & 66). Accessed 5 October 2006.
^ Milloy column on global warming, published 12 October 2006, in which Milloy is described as a "junk science expert." Accessed 16 October 2006.
^ Climate Change: The Denial Industry, by George Monbiot. Published as an excerpt in The Guardian on September 19, 2006; accessed July 23, 2007.
^ a b [2] American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation article on Steven Milloy. Accessed July 26, 2007.
^ Cato Institute Q&A with Steve Milloy. Accessed 10 October 2006.
^ [3]
^ Ultimate Global Warming Challenge, a Steven Milloy website. Accessed August 24, 2007.
^ Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice, by Steven Milloy, FoxNews.com, 12 Nov., 2004
^ RealClimate
^ DemandDebate.com Press Release, PRNewsWire.com, Oct 1, 2007.
^ Interview with Borelli on The Young Turks, accessed on www.lastvideo.net, July 12, 2007.
^ Bureaucrash and the "Demand Debate" Campaign Crash Live Earth New York, Competitive Enterprise Institute Press Release, July9th, 2007.
^ An Empty Uniform, by Michael Gough and Steven Milloy, The Wall Street Journal, 10 February, 1998
^ NCPA Idea House: Who Needs A Surgeon General?
^ At Risk from the Pesticide Myth, by Steven Milloy, July 28, 2000
^ a b The Malaria Clock: A Green Eco-Imperialist Legacy of Death
^ Rachel Carson, Mass Murderer? The creation of an anti-environmental myth, Aaron Swartz, Extra!, September/October 2007.
^ The UnAustralian. Retrieved on 2007-06-29.
^ Day of Reckoning for DDT Foes?, by Steven Milloy, FoxNews.com, Thursday, September 21, 2006
^ a b Article: Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives, FoxNews.com. Published September 14, 2001.
^ Criticism of Milloy's comments by the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat. Accessed 11 October 2006.
^ Criticism of Milloy for blaming asbestos removal for the WTC collapses, from the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat. Accessed 16 October 2006.
^ Steven Milloy (2002-08-30). Quorn & CSPI: The Other Fake Meat. Fox News. Retrieved on 2006-05-20.
^ Scott C. Wallace, CEO of Gardenburger. Gardenburger rebuttal to: "The Other Fake Meat" by Steven Milloy. Retrieved on 2006-05-20.
^ Steve Milloy. Q and A With Steve Milloy. Retrieved on 2007-01-11.
^ United States Senate Lobby Filing Disclosure Program, listing Milloy as a lobbyist for the EOP Group from 1998-2000, accessed 28 June 2006.
^ Washington Lobbyists, 1996, Columbia Books, Washington DC.
^ Saving the Planet With Pestilent Statistics, by Karen Charman. Published in the PR Watch newsletter, Vol. 6 No. 4 (1999). Accessed June 29, 2007.
^ "Junk Science and the Art of Spin-Doctoring" Stewart Fist Old Dominion University College of Sciences.
^ Free Enterprise Action Fund press release, criticizing Microsoft for abandoning the use of PVC in its packing materials. Accessed 11 October 2006.
^ Free Enterprise Action Fund press release chastising the Business Roundtable for insufficient vigilance in the defense of capitalism. Accessed 11 October 2006.
^ Free Enterprise Action Fund press release criticizing General Electric's environmental policy. Accessed 11 October 2006.
^ "Strange Bedfellows: Politics and Investment Fund", from the Boston Herald. Published 24 Jan 2006. Accessed 11 October 2006.
^ "Thank You for Investing: A very curious right-wing mutual fund." Article by Daniel Gross from Slate magazine, published 4 May 2006. Accessed 11 October 2006.
^ "Battle For The Boardroom", by Tom Borelli, posted on Junkscience.com. Accessed 17 October 2006.

[edit] See also
Global Climate Coalition
American Petroleum Institute

[edit] External links

[edit] Milloy's Websites
Junkscience.com
CSRWatch.com
The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

[edit] Tobacco Document Archives
The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library at the University of California, San Francisco.
The Philip Morris USA Document Site

[edit] News coverage
"The Trashman Speweth" and "How Big Tobacco Helped Create "'the Junkman'", at PR Watch
"The Junkman Climbs to the Top", from Environmental Science & Technology, May 11, 2005
"Smoked Out" at The New Republic (also available at Freepress.net), January 26, 2006
"Strange bedfellows: Politics and investment fund" in the Boston Herald, January 24, 2006
"Climate Change, The Denial Industry", The Guardian, September 19, 2006
"Some Like It Hot", article on Milloy's connection to ExxonMobil from Mother Jones, May/June 2005
"If You Seek the Truth, Don't Trash the Science", Washington Post, by John Schwartz, February 21, 1999
Exxon Secrets: Steven Milloy
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy"

[jackhartjr]

PremiumPrevost, in a way I have cut back.
Like Jack Conrad said, we have found places closer to home to camp, and finding really neat places at that.

I also have called several of the places we used to camp in the Outer Banks of NC and said...look, we used to come out ther about 8 times a year, just can't afford it now...sorry.  I also suggest they call or write all of the congessmaen and senators in NC and tell them what they are hearing.  And beleive me, I am not the only one calling then and saying basically the same thing.  (We have not been to the Banks since May last year.  At an 800 mile round trip, plus riding around money that's a lot of fuel.)

Not only do the campgrounds lose that money, the local government loses the "Bed tax" money, (Another crap tax we get hit with whether you know about it or not!) the restaurants lose money, the bait and fishing takle folks lose money, the grocery stores lose money, you get the picture!

And of course as I said above I am telling the c-stores and gas companies what I said above.

I have always said, if you don't like something, complain and complain loud...if you don't tell them you are unhappy...they think you are happy!

Jack

[Lin]

   WARNING--overly long opinionated posting!

     You are wrong if you think out political leaders are fools.  They are not; they are just greedy.  This administration is driven mostly by greed.  Aside from the personal wealth accumulated, they are helping there "friends" accumulate vaster fortunes than they already have.  This attitude is not reserved for the Republican Party.  Former President Jimmy Carter is virtually a spokesperson of Saudi interests.  He tries to act as an impartial statesman while talking on the Middle East, but he, through his business, is heavily subsidized by the Saudis.  It is certainly very complex, but I doubt that those with billions of dollars at stake sit back and leave everything to chance; they buy the results they want.  At one time, they tried to keep as much hidden as possible.  Now they don't even care to do that.  Oil companies can gouge the world, and if you want to criticize their obscene profits, you can go right ahead; they don't give a damn.  Walmart can run virtual slave factories overseas, try to treat people here the same way, and destroy whole communities, but people will still shop there because, strangely enough, slave production can be cheaper.  There was a documentary a couple of years ago called, "The Corporation".  The premise was that since corporations are legally people, let's look at what kind of people they are.  It became pretty clear that they fit the definition of psychopaths.  Think about it, what would you think of a person that was only driven by selfishness and greed and was proud of it-- that related to every other being in the world in terms of what they could get from them and declared it as a natural right to do so.  "Nothing personal, it's just business."

     Of course there are responsible corporate citizens, but that is not the norm.  When the New York City garbage industry was pulled from the hands of the Mafia involving years of life-threatening undercover work, the cost of collection dropped 40% immediately.  However, when the larger corporations moved in and took everything over, the price went right back up again.  The officer that had risked his life undercover for years to break gang control of the industry commented when interviewed that everything was back to the way it was before he started except that the corporates didn't "wack" each other.

   Anyway this is really longwinded and maybe laden with errors, but that's okay.  Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that "To have doubted one's own first principles is the mark of a civilized man."  This stuff does not even come close to being "first principles".

[Barn Owl]

There is one item of interest that has not been mentioned. Globally the price of oil has increased but not at the rate it has in the US. Why? Because of the steady decline of the dollar against many of the world currencies. Our money is deflating and no one (politicians are not talking about it) seems to be making an issue of it. Our money is not worth as much as it once was because investors are worried about our debt and our politician's willingness to put us in even deeper to broaden the dependence on the nanny state. The Republicans and the Democrats both are responsible for the mess we are in. They are in a race to buy votes and see who can outspend each other while screwing our children's future even more. This crushing debt must be worked on or we will see our country collapse from the inside. Don't think our enemies don't know this. If they don't win on the battlefield they are OK with winning by bankrupting us. Ultimately we are responsible for the mess we are in because we (speaking in generalities) are responsible for voting those bastards in, and letting them rape us financially. The only thing we can do to attempt to change this is to be as active as possible in the political processes. I am not a dooms-day person, but I believe that being prepared for the worse brings some confidence and peace in this otherwise screwed up direction we are heading. Get your house in order by doing some simple things. No particular order and not inclusive, this is off the top of my head and I'm sure I could make it longer, or anyone of you could add to it.

This is what my family is working on:

1. Build up a year supply of food and necessitates, grow a garden.
2. Save enough to be financially independent for a year, live within your means, diversify your holdings.
3. Educate yourself; learn a second job or skill that you can fall back on.
4. Where possible store enough energy for a year. (Wood, coal, propane, etc.)
5. Get out of debt.
6. Understand the Constitution and what a great county America is and teach it to others,  especially our children.
7. Understand Gods purpose in your life.
8. Be willing to defend your freedoms, family, and right to worship as you see fit.
9. I believe in being armed and that freedom and peace comes from strength not weakness.
10. Become as healthy as possible, you will feel better and it might mean fewer visits to our failing health care system.

In trying to live where I am not dependant on the government for my survival, I feel it helps me make better long term choices. I feel like this stuff is common sense, and even though I am probably in the minority, I know of many out there that share similar beliefs.

I realize that I have strayed off topic but I am frustrated as I watch so many that are willing to flush what makes this country so good down the toilet. May God help us.

I am fortunate to live in Virginia where my family can do what Jack mentioned; take shorter trips. Within a three to five hour drive in any direction I can see and do more than just about anyone.  I might have to skimp somewhere else, but the bus will roll on!

[JohnEd]

I hope I don't end up in jail for plagiarism...or whatever, but this is a post on Fox News "Opinions"
If our mods have a problem with the reprint, feel free to remove it...no problemo.
Enjoy, JR

By Steven Milloy

All the presidential candidates say they're for energy independence. So why didn't they do something about it when they had the chance?

This isn't a "REAL" question.  It is an implied statement that "they" did nothing while the accuser stands aside.


Hillary Clinton rails on her Web site about Americans sending "billions of dollars to the Middle East for their oil." Barack Obama warns that Middle East oil is the "lifeline of Al Qaeda." Republican hopeful John McCain says that, if elected, his energy policy will "amount to a declaration of independence from our reliance on oil sheiks and our vulnerability to their troubled politics."

We have sent 7 trillion dollars to the middle east in the last 30 years.  I am glad that somebody is finally getting UPSET.

But Clinton and Obama recently voted for a bill that can only promote dependency on oil from the Middle East. And John McCain went AWOL, not voting on the bill at all.

That is a lie.
A little-noticed provision of the ironically named "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush last December bars the federal government from purchasing fuels whose life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than those from fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources.

Should we purchase anything that makes the green house gas problem worse just because EXXON was clever enough to make it outside our national border?  We have to breath this stuff and adjust for the environment complications NO MATTER WHERE ON THE PLANET the criminals commit the crime.


Before we get into the energy independence implications of this provision, it's worth appreciating the obscurity of the provision and the fact that the media doesn't seem to understand its import.

Maybe they are not jumping on this for another very good reason.  That would NOT BE that the media is employed by EXXON as the author is.

I only learned of the provision while thumbing through the Feb. 15 Financial Times, serendipitously noticing the egregiously mis-titled article, "U.S. risks trade dispute with Canada on fuel." A bit of research turned up no other media reports relating to this particular section of the bill.

The Financial Times article reported on how section 526 of the energy bill prohibits the federal government from buying oil that was produced from Canadian tar sands, a reserve that holds about two-thirds the amount of recoverable oil as compared to reserves in Saudi Arabia.

They have been trying to find a way to get that stuff to the surface since I was a kid.  It isn't economically feasible till oil hits $100 per barrel.  No wait...we are there. 

Because it takes greenhouse gas-producing energy to extract oil from the tar sands, the article focused on the fact that the law could affect billions of dollars of trade in oil, particularly since the U.S. Department of Defense is the world's largest single buyer of light refined petroleum.

This clause was to prevent EXXON from using coal to heat the drilling/pumping operation to get the viscosity down to a level where the tar sand could be pumped to the surface.
The major source of fossil fuel pollutants is from the electricity producing industry....then Cars/trucks are second.....the Department of Defense isn't even close.  They are mentioned as a consumer only because the author wants to make it appear that congress is anti military and defense.  It follows that the congress is in league with the TERRORISTS.  Call the NRA...QUICK.

But while I give the Financial Times credit for reporting this story, it really dropped the ball with respect to understanding it — this is yet another effort by environmentalists and their congressional henchmen to cause chaos in our energy supply.

Congressional TERRORISTS again.
Doesn't sound patently STUPID to accuse our US Congress of trying to create "CHAOS" in the United States of America?  Congress is BOTH parties. Sort of politically secular.

Sure enough, it turns out that Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., already are pressing the Department of Defense to comply with the provision. In a recent letter to the secretary of defense, Waxman and Davis asked how the DOD will ensure that the fuel it buys doesn't come from Canadian tar sands or from domestic coal-to-liquid processing.

Why is it a "sure enough" thing that Congress asks the DOD to make certain that the DOD is FOLLOWING THE LAW.  Why is that a bad thing?
Waxman and Davis apparently expect the military to expend the Herculean effort of tracing the source of the fuel it purchases and then to refuse North American oil from unconventional sources apparently in favor of oil from OPEC sources such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. How's that for energy independence and security?

OK, let me see if I understand this and bear in mind that I administered contracts for the DOD.  Is the author saying that in a procurement I cannot ask the bidder to provide "Qualified Source" information and documentation.  Contractors are paid for E V E R Y T H I N G they do and none EVER charged me to answer that question.  It ain't HERCULEAN....is  routine and mundane.
It gets worse if you're one of those who believe that biofuels are the path to energy independence.

Every gallon of BIOD we use is a gallon of Dino we don't.  Nobody ever said we could "switch" to BIO.  That is ludicrous.
The plain language of section 526 also would seem to ban the federal government from purchasing biofuels like ethanol, since their life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than that of conventional petroleum.

"Turning native ecosystems into 'farms' for biofuel crops causes major carbon emissions that worsen the global warming that biofuels are meant to mitigate," researchers from the University of Minnesota and the Nature Conservancy reported in Science (Feb. 7). Another study in the same issue of Science projected that the life-cycle greenhouse gas emission from ethanol over 30 years is twice as high as from regular gasoline.

This guy is finally correct.  Ethanol is very much a bad deal for the environment.  It is the corn lobby and the chem industry that are lobbying for more ethanol.  If we converted our excess it would make sense but ADM and Purina smell profit here so we are going all out.  The mid west farmers are now be touted as being opposed top Bio.  Really!
Interestingly, Waxman and Davis specifically excluded biofuels from their letter to the DOD. Not to worry, though, biofuels likely soon will become fuel-non-grata as the environmentalists have already started to demonize them.

Similar to the case of compact fluorescent light bulbs discussed in this column last week, The New York Times editorial page this week signaled that biofuels soon will become as politically incorrect as the Canadian tar sands and domestic coal-to-liquid fuels.

LA has passed an ordinance that all incandescent lamps are outlawed except for special permit.  They expect to cut electricity production and oil fired generators by a bunch.  They really worry about their air quality cause they can SEE their air.  EXXON says that isn't a bad thing and one shouldn't trust air one can't see".  That's a quote

The Times opined that, "Done right, ethanol could help wean the country from its dependence on foreign oil while reducing the emissions that contribute to climate change. Done wrong, ethanol could wreak havoc on the environment while increasing greenhouse gases."

"Done right" for the Times is what's required in the energy bill — a 20 percent reduction in life-cycle greenhouse gases as compared to gasoline. But, of course, this is a next-to-impossible goal since the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions for ethanol are projected to be 100 percent greater than for gasoline.

It likely will require nothing short of a technological miracle for ethanol to achieve the energy bill's standards in the near or even distant future.

Now, if the federal government is barred from bio-, tar sand, coal-to-liquid fuels, how long will it be before such a ban spreads to contractors that do business with the federal government, to states and their contractors, and then, by default, to the nation as a whole?

It's hard to take the presidential candidates, President Bush and Congress too seriously on the energy independence issue when none of them opposed a bill that actually makes us more dependent on OPEC.


YA SEE, It is the whole darn GUMMINT....Libertarian!!!!!

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

[JohnEd]

Barn Owl,

Sounds like a good plan to me.  God bless you and yours.

I have heard it said that the nicest people in these United States live in Northern Virginia.  I can certainly vouch for that special group.  Southern Va. wasn't all that bad either.  Nice place!  Lucky you!

John

[JohnEd]

Lin,

I have heard it said that much of today's problems are routed in a "conservative" Supreme Court judgment that declared Political contributions an example of people exercising free speech.  It then declared Corporations as having the "same  rights" as people.  ERGO...Corps have "THE RIGHT" to make political contributions.  In no other democracy is that held true.  Many say it is our Republics UNDOING.  I think it is a serious situation, anyway.

Thanks,

John

[Sojourner]

quote....The price for cutting back on oil usage will be even Higher Prices at the pump..... Cant take money out of the pockets of people who are used to it!

It's happening allready, we are in the earliest stages of alternitive fuels in new vehicles and that alone has caused futures to rise uncontrollably..

Nick-
unquote

First of all...if you sell a product and the demand is greater than it can produce or knowing it going to run out...naturally common sense business practice is to price it according to the demand.....right. That is what we all human being business person do since Adam & Eve. This price increase is going up because the world is asking more fuel.
Think about China.they are one of main reason our fuel price are up because they are buying up all the fuel they can get their hands on right now.

So what it means is that we (including me) have to be patience while we get independent from world problem light Brazil is already doing since 1980s or be more energy efficient with fuel or use less of it.

I always try to check from the horses mouth before to believe or not to believe whatever their claims are.

A part from JohnEd post about damaging greenhouse-gas "as not all are more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140809.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103144404.htm


2007
http://biopact.com/2007/10/expert-chinas-biomass-power-plants-to.html

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/08/xethanol_corpor.html

http://seekingalpha.com/article/14058-xethanol-s-new-ethanol-plant-leverages-pfizer-investment

Over 75 differences News Paper Articles about propose biofuel in Florida that happen during 2007.
http://www.grainnet.com/info/search.php?site=GRAINNET&q=Florida&literal=true

Feb 2008 meeting about Lynx Transit converting 290 buses to biodiesel fuel.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-lynx2708feb27,0,21976.story?track=rss

About first ethanol storage terminal in USA   Jacksonville, FL
http://www.grainnet.com/info/search.php?site=GRAINNET&q=Florida&literal=true

Firm's goal: Yard waste into usable fuel from Florida
http://www.dtn.com/news.cfm?content=06news/91106&sidenav=sn_innews

Florida's grants to encourage getting Fuel Ethanol Production from Citrus Waste Biomass
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/energy/energyact/files/02.11.2008-Award%20Winners%20Summaries.pdf

[kingfa39]

our leaders are doing whats best for big money, they say they want us independent but shut down nearly all our oil wells in the country. Exxon makes millions while we pay the price. what a joke. Democrats have done there fair share of damage as well but the Bush chenny crowd has done nothing but get us in a illegal war (times 2) and bankrupted us , the war on middle class is in full swing, if anybody thinks thes people are acting in our best interests you deserve what you get. as for me i want to throw up every time i get into all this.

[lostagain]

We own an independent gas station. We retail gas, diesel and propane under the Petro Canada brand. We set our own prices, taking into account our cost (set by Big Oil), and our competitor's prices in our market area. So yes we drive the get-away car, but we feel as entitled to make a living as you Jack or anyone else. Before pointing the finger, look at how you made or make your living. Anybody in business charges as much as they can within their market. Sometimes you can make good money, other times you just brake even. If you work for wages, you always asking for more. If you can't afford the fuel for your bus, you'r in the wrong hobby. Buy a tent and go camping with a bicycle. I hear people bitching about the price of gas every day, but I don't see them trading in the Escalade for a VW diesel or a Smart car. So unless you'r living naked in a tree, you are not in position to blame me or the next guy for the world's troubles.

There, I feel better now after venting this.  

JC

[jackhartjr]

JC, out of due respect, I get paid the same as I have been being paid for the past 8 years, it has not gone up.  Fuel has more than doubled and is close to trippling in that time.  Motels and food costs are about 10% higher as a rule. 
Now what galls me is how they annouce a price increase and the fuel can jump 20 cents overnight...now get this...on fuel already in the ground! 
We are being gouged...plain and simple.
Maybe the driving the get-a-way car was a bit harsh...and maybe flat out wrong.  I am sorry for putting it that way.
Maybe I don't like being ripped off as I am getting!
Jack
PS...I could be making about 5 times what I am making now doing expert wittness work for plaintiff attorneys in bus and truck crashes...however I like to sleep well at night!  I gave that up quickly and choose to o defence work only!

[Le Mirage]

Just for your information, in Quebec, the diesel cost 1.256$ a "liter", average 4.69$ US gal. I think seriously that the next summer will be difficult for me to ride with my Prevost. Actually, I have a VW New Beetle diesel for going to my job. When I bought this car, 2001, fulling the thank costed 28$ CND. Now, 55$ CND.

[Len Silva]

So, let me throw in my 12 cents here (inflation, you know).
I believe that the single most critical thing driving oil prices is this stupid, ill conceived war in Iraq. We are spending bazillions of dollars on credit, financed by foreigners, who may very well be our enemies in the future. The very profit that are making off us will drive up there own fuel consumption. The military is a very large user of fuel, if not the largest, and they don't care what they pay for it.  After all, it is "wartime", you know.

Of course, if you believe that the Iraq invasion ever had anything to do with terrorists or terrorism, or 9-11, then my beliefs won't have much impact.

The country is being run by people with their hands very deep in our pockets, and it is not for the common good.  If I am going to be taxed to death anyway, then I would rather my money went to help those less fortunate than me and not to help the very rich get very richer.

Back on topic, mol, the idea of using any food crop for fuel is just stupid, there cannot be a better word for it.
Now, using waste such as sugar cane bagase, tree trimmings, manure, garbage, methane, etc. etc. makes much more sense.  It also makes more sense to me to use these things to fuel stationary uses like power plants and large buildings, and leave the petro for transportation.

There, I feel better. Surely this will go OT now.

Len