Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

[Bond]

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has theRepublican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Source: Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060810/cm_usatoday/goreisntquiteasgreenashesledtheworldtobelieve)

I never liked Gore very much when he ran for the presidency in 2000, but I had actually starting warming (no pun intended) up to him lately with all the work he has done with global warming.

[Neo]

Oh come on, everybody knows Al Gore is a robot from the future who needs massive quantities of zinc in order to fuel his internal fusion core.

[GameMaster]

KING: What do you drive?

GORE: I drive a hybrid. Tipper and I got a Lexus hybrid. And we have a couple of Priuses in the family with our children. And I encourage people to make environmentally conscious choices because we all have to solve this climate crisis.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/13/lkl.01.html

[Xantar]

And the purpose of this little piece of political trolling would be...?

[Blackmane]

And the purpose of this little piece of political trolling would be...?


To get a rise out of Gore lovers?

I think he is a misguided nitwit with good intentions.

[Typhoid]

To get a rise out of Gore lovers?

Is that some sort of Oxymoron?

[Bond]

And the purpose of this little piece of political trolling would be...?
To generate forum activity... your highness?

[Professor S]

I don't care about whether or not Gore drives a hybrid of subscribes to green energy. All of that has little effect on the environment and doesn;t really paint Gore as a hippocrit.

The zinc mine? Um, thats a bit damning... also is the fact that global warming is STILL an unproven theory with many highly intelligent and independent detractors.

My biggest problem with Gore is how he has attempted to just squash debate by proclaiming that any scientists that disagree with him are either in the pocket of "Big Oil" (who he apprently owns a bit of) or are just wackos. This does nothing to further the debate and makes him look like an idiot when legitimate scholars and and researchers debunk his fact as theory.

I'm not saying that global warming doesn't exist or isn't happening, I don't know. I also don't know if our exitence on this planet even has that much of an effect on GW if it is happening. To just assume so is both arrogant and willfully ignorant. I do know that there is a lot of evidence to its contrary and even evience that the earth is beginning a COOLING period (I'll try and find the links later during my lunch break) that is just as worthy of examination.

In the end, my biggest problem si that Gore states theory as fact and then expects us to completely change out way of life according to his misleading statements.

EDIT: For a really detailed, if somewhat obtuse, debunking of An Inconvenient Truth, click here: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

They pretty much re-state what I summarized but with an insane amount of data and hard science.

[Xantar]

If we wanted to play the hypocrite game, I could start shouting at George W. Bush for sending people into war without ever having seen a day of combat in his life. But I don't hold that against him, and neither should anybody start slamming Al Gore for having two large residences. He's had those houses long before he got into global warming, and although I suppose it would be nice if he had bulldozed his own houses and installed solar panels in their place, we can't expect him to be a saint. Besides, I'll bet that whenever he's not in his house, he turns the power off. This is why I questioned the point of even bringing up this kind of ad hominem attack. Even if Al Gore is the worst kind of hypocrite imaginable, that means nothing with regard to the question of global warming just like George Bush's National Guard service has nothing to do with whether it was right to go into Iraq.

Anyway, everything I've read on the matter indicates that there is now a consensus among climatologists that global warming is real and is caused by humans. As recently as two years ago I would say that such a consensus didn't exist, but it now does as much as any consensus can exist in the scientific community. Yes, there are intelligent and reasonable detractors, and their opinions should be taken into account. But every survey and panel since 2004 has said global warming is occurring in the long term and its causes are at least partly human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change). The survey by Science magazine is probably the one Gore is citing when he says that there is a general consensus on the issue. The question now is simply to what degree humans are responsible and what percentage of global warming is a natural process.

Scientists are not unanimous, but they never are. However, the fact that the people who oppose the consensus view on global warming are all individuals whereas the ones in support of it are all large professional scientific organizations (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy)) suggests to me that we have the closest thing we're ever going to get to a general consensus. Strangler's JunkScience article is a great read, and I definitely recommend it for everyone. However, that article is also guilty of stating claims as fact from time to time. It contends, for example, that Urban Heat Islands may be a significant factor in the temperature increase we are measuring. And while some studies have claimed to compensate for the UHI effect, JunkScience dismisses those claims as, "not entirely convincing" without really providing data or sources to support their position. I'm not saying that UHI's have nothing to do with how we measure the global temperature, but JunkScience seems to take the position that since UHI's exist and since we don't know how much or whether it affects our measurements, all such measurements are suspect. In my view, that's not a justifiable position.

One good thing JunkScience points out, though, is that it's not all about carbon. There is evidence that even changing the color of the land (for example, cutting down trees and replacing them with wheat fields, effectively changing the land from green to yellow) can affect local temperatures. There are still way too many factors to deal with, and it doesn't help that climatologists can't exactly conduct controlled double-blind experiments. But when we have this much consensus on the issue, I think that we can no longer afford to ignore it. It used to be that a large percentage of scientists said that the earth's temperature isn't even rising, but now there isn't a single respectable one who says that. It used to be that a large percentage of scientists didn't think that global warming was caused in any way by humans. Those ranks have now been reduced to a few dozen individuals while the overwhelming majority of their colleagues now think that global warming is caused at least a little bit by humans. The detractors may still be right, but what if they're not?

[KillerGremlin]

Eh, whatever. Earth is like a rock that takes care of itself. If we are somehow to cause for temperature problems, the temperature will eventually fight back, and we all will die. Problem solved.

[Professor S]

I'm all for using "greener" energy sources for many reasons, both environmental and political. I love nature and have lived in rural areas all my life. But what I am wholeheartedly against is the use of environmental politics to control our lives "for the greater good." In this argument, the left is guilty of the same offences that they claim the right is with the war on terror. "An Inconvenient Truth" follows the poor example of Michael Moore: it takes a considerable topic with valid points and then exagerrates them to the point that it alienates those that are reasonable ignore your argument all-together. Remember the vision of New York under 20 feet of water? Yeah, try at most 2-3 feet if that. Gore even admitted to the exagerration.

This isn't about saving the world. Its about Al Gore screaming and banging on the door try to get out of his cage of obscurity (ooooh, I like that!). He's been doing this same presentation, which used to be a literal slide show, for 20 years. Its about the government dictating to us what cars we can drive, what fuel we use to heat our house and most importantly its about telling us all how bad everything is and is going to be unless THEY run things. Just like the far right does with terrorism, and we actually have real tangible evidence for that at least.

Most importantly, this is a veiled attack on capitalism. Why? What do you think is going to happen if those like Al Gore get their way? They are going to regulate fuel and energy until only those that are "green" (translated to "chosen by them") will be allowed to sell to the public. Like all regulated industry, it will fall into corruption filled with kick-backs and sweetheart deals. Its an attempt to convert us to a semi-socialist state, and socialism is NOT a destination... it is a toll booth.

Right now we are already seeing change, and it has nothing to do with Al Gore or government regulation. The powers of capitalism are already giving us the ends that Gore wishes for. High oil prices are pushing industry to greener fuel alternatives and the hybrid cars and industry. Increased regulation would most likely only increase the conversion process and limit our choices.

I'll leave you with a quote from Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT:

“So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

“First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a ‘moral’ crusade.

“Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.”

[Xantar]

Right now we are already seeing change, and it has nothing to do with Al Gore or government regulation. The powers of capitalism are already giving us the ends that Gore wishes for. High oil prices are pushing industry to greener fuel alternatives and the hybrid cars and industry. Increased regulation would most likely only increase the conversion process and limit our choices.


Err...wait a second. Are you saying that capitalism is already correcting for global warming because higher oil prices are pushing us to greener energy? Because the connections don't quite flow through in that logic.

Also, the success of hybrid cars does not actually have all that much to do with gas prices. Hybrid cars cost significantly more than regular cars of the same type, and the increased gas mileage isn't enough to save you any money in the long run, even taking $3 per gallon gas into account. Economically, there is no reason for anyone to buy a hybrid car — unless they want to support green energy alternatives on principle. It's safe to say that if it hadn't been for activists and campaigners who made carbon pollution a mainstream topic of debate, hybrid cars would still sell but not nearly as well as they have.

Also, regulation doesn't always have to mean banning certain fuels or mandating certain technologies. One of the things I really like about the network of pollution credits that's being set up around the world is it essentially leverages capitalism. A set number of pollution credits are given out and those companies which have a surplus of pollution credits can trade them away to those who need them and in that way everybody is in competition to innovate and create new, cleaner technologies.

I could get into all your comparisons between environmentalists and the far right, Michael Moore and Al Gore and so on, but I realized that those are red herring issues which don't have much to do with the topic at hand. I could delve into how Steven Milloy (writer of JunkScience.com) is documented to be a paid advocate of ExxonMobil and Philip Morris and that his website has attempted to debunk evolution and the purported ill effects of smoking. But even if all that is true, it's beside the point because what he's saying on this issue is worth reading and talking about and not simply dismissing out of hand (and to be fair, Steven Milloy also has two science degrees from Johns Hopkins and a law degree from Georgetown. He's no idiot, that's for sure). Just because the messenger's not perfect doesn't mean we should go throwing out the message, too.

[KillerGremlin]

...all gonna blow ourselves up...

[Professor S]

Err...wait a second. Are you saying that capitalism is already correcting for global warming because higher oil prices are pushing us to greener energy? Because the connections don't quite flow through in that logic.

Tell that to the car companies who use their hybrid's MPG as the main marketing tool and conveniently never mention the increased maintenance cost. Whether or not its more economical is irrelevant. People are buying those cars because they think its more economical and the superior feeling of "doing the right thing" is just an added bonus along with fear of the middle east. People vote and purchase with their wallets, not their good intentions. And in the end, its better for the environment.

It's safe to say that if it hadn't been for activists and campaigners who made carbon pollution a mainstream topic of debate, hybrid cars would still sell but not nearly as well as they have.

Actually, its not safe to say that. At all. Green cars (remember the electric car?) and alternative fuel strategies have been around for DECADES, as have these wonderful activists, and now during this oil crisis is the time when everyone grows a ecological conscience. The bottom line is people are feeling the pinch in their wallet and the violence in the middle east and they think they can alleviate both by going hybrid. And honestly, car pollution is a scientific joke when it comes to polltution and global warming as car exhaust contributes to a minute % of greenhouse gasses. Industry, and not even AMERICAN industry, are the big culprits. We can regulate all we want while China and Eastern Europe pump out black smoke by the cubic meter, and it won't mean a damn thing.



Not if you listen to Gore and some of the public tatements he's made. I agree government regulation isn;t always bad, but to the point that HE wants to stretch it IS.

[quote]I could get into all your comparisons between environmentalists and the far right, Michael Moore and Al Gore and so on, but I realized that those are red herring issues which don't have much to do with the topic at hand.

They have more to do with how the left shoots themselves in the foot with outrageous comparisons and statements that have more to do with fantasy than fact. My point int mentioning this is that they kill their own VALID argument by exagerrating it. In that, it is perfectly on topic and I don't think I was trying to create a red-herring at all as the two topics are related and have everything to do with politics.

I could delve into how Steven Milloy (writer of JunkScience.com) is documented to be a paid advocate of ExxonMobil and Philip Morris and that his website has attempted to debunk evolution and the purported ill effects of smoking.

Oh could you delve into it? My my, thank you for taking the HIGH ROAD by NOT delving into it... oh wait... you just did (talk about passive-agressive). I quoted the author because the science was valid. There were a whole lot of articles that weren't, so I didnlt meantion them. Any comment about the professor from MIT I quoted, and how he is a stooge for Karl Rove and Big Oil? Or does he touch puppies in naughty places?

You do a wonderful job of saying a whole lot without ever taking credit for saying anything at all.

[Xantar]

Tell that to the car companies who use their hybrid's MPG as the main marketing tool and conveniently never mention the increased maintenance cost. Whether or not its more economical is irrelevant. People are buying those cars because they think its more economical and the superior feeling of "doing the right thing" is just an added bonus along with fear of the middle east. People vote and purchase with their wallets, not their good intentions. And in the end, its better for the environment.


I was confused because it appeared that you were saying that capitalism and the environment are self-correcting mechanisms. In other words, oil prices are reacting to global temperatures which is driving us to create more fuel-efficient cars. I now know that's not what you meant to say, but it seemed to be what you were driving at. We both know that global warming doesn't have all that much to do with the price of oil. And I certainly agree that gas prices have a lot to do with the current popularity of hybrid cars. I wasn't trying to debunk anything you said. I merely wanted to clarify.

Oh could you delve into it? My my, thank you for taking the HIGH ROAD by NOT delving into it... oh wait... you just did (talk about passive-agressive). I quoted the author because the science was valid. There were a whole lot of articles that weren't, so I didnlt meantion them. Any comment about the professor from MIT I quoted, and how he is a stooge for Karl Rove and Big Oil? Or does he touch puppies in naughty places?

You do a wonderful job of saying a whole lot without ever taking credit for saying anything at all.


Your hostility is not called for at all. Yes, I did say that he is a paid advocate of Philip Morris and ExxonMobil. Those are documented facts. I also said that he has science degrees from Johns Hopkins and a law degree from Georgetown and that he's far from clueless about what he's talking about. So I must be passive-aggressively trying to imply that he's a right wing shill, eh? Maybe I just mean exactly what I say: his background and credentials have nothing to do with the validity of what he says. That's it. I can understand how you got the impression you did, but considering how offended you often get whenever I imply that you're a right wing reactionary, I find that you're pretty quick to jump to similar conclusions about me.

As a matter of fact, I have been researching Steven Milloy's article and have been preparing a response to his article. I haven't posted it until now because he has written a lot and there's a lot of evidence to go through. I hope to get a post up some time tomorrow. There are significant rebuttals to a lot of what he claims, and although I'm certainly no expert in the field, I think they are at least as worthy of consideration as his own article. And no, I don't have anything to say in detail about what the MIT professor said. I haven't gotten around to it yet because I'm still working on Milloy's article.

Now, why don't you take your golden baseball bat and go work out your stress on a newbie's head for a while?

[Professor S]

Your hostility is not called for at all. Yes, I did say that he is a paid advocate of Philip Morris and ExxonMobil. Those are documented facts. I also said that he has science degrees from Johns Hopkins and a law degree from Georgetown and that he's far from clueless about what he's talking about. So I must be passive-aggressively trying to imply that he's a right wing shill, eh?

My agressiveness was not aimed at your information but rather the way that you put it. You "took the high road" by saying you "could" mention everything that you did, as if it was beneath you, and then mentioned it not mentioning it. So in essence you took the high road by not taking the high road at all. That was a passive-agressive response and is what drew my ire.

Also, the fact that you are doing research and continuing the debate is good, and was my whole point. Gore and his friends are attempting to squelch debate and critical thinking and believe that they can create fact through simply repeating their theory... THEORY... and their evidence over and over again. Then when a response to their claims is made, they simply dismiss it because its not what they think. This is not good for our country or for science.

And I'll swing my bat at anyone I please!!! :D

[Xantar]

My agressiveness was not aimed at your information but rather the way that you put it. You "took the high road" by saying you "could" mention everything that you did, as if it was beneath you, and then mentioned it not mentioning it. So in essence you took the high road by not taking the high road at all.

Then apparently you don't know how much controversy surrounds Steven Milloy and how much has been written about him. Yes, I mentioned his connections to the oil and tobacco industry. If you want to call it passive-aggressive, then fine. You should also know that those ties, which are public knowledge, are merely the tip of an iceberg of accusations, allegations and probably a good bit of smear, too. So in fact there really is a whole lot of junk that I never brought up at all even with the things that I said. I never claimed to be taking the high road. I just said such things are irrelevant just as it's irrelevant how many houses Al Gore has or how much he resembles Michael Moore. I never intended to bring any of this up again until you started shouting at me.

Now, can we please drop the subject and move on to talking about whether or not global warming is happening?

[Professor S]

Now, can we please drop the subject and move on to talking about whether or not global warming is happening?

Sorry, sir. Sorry for implying you had a superiority complex. I'm obviously way off base... Once again, my comments had NOTHING to do with bringing up Milloy and everything to do with HOW you brought him up. Realize it, own it and eventually try and fix it. Now moving on...

My argument never was that there is or isn't global warming global warming. My argument is that Al Gore is trying to turn theory into fact through repetition. He is trying to SILENCE dissent, which is never good in any case. I never said global warming isn't happening. I never posted anything that said it wasn't happening. In fact, the basis of this entire THREAD has nothing to do with whether or not global warming is happening.

The only arguments that I have put forth are those that believe that the subject is still worth discussing, which it is, and also point out possible alterior motives for this sudden push to silence critics. Thats it. Anything else you've read into them is your own creation.

[Crash]

if the world was going to overheat.... it's because the world is going to anyways.

[Xantar]

Sorry, sir. Sorry for implying you had a superiority complex. I'm obviously way off base...

You know, I've been thinking about just apologizing for the way I said what I said. And then I came back from work here to find you apparently insulting me in a passive-aggressive manner (ironic, given the circumstances). I don't want to sound resentful because in the end I'm really not bothered by it. But I hope this is just a case of me being oversensitive.

But anyway, never mind that. I'm sorry for my little moral superiority act. It wasn't my intention to act like an annoying prick. If it offended you, I'm sorry about that. I hope we can move on, and I hope it won't poison the rest of this discussion.

My argument never was that there is or isn't global warming global warming. My argument is that Al Gore is trying to turn theory into fact through repetition. He is trying to SILENCE dissent, which is never good in any case. I never said global warming isn't happening. I never posted anything that said it wasn't happening. In fact, the basis of this entire THREAD has nothing to do with whether or not global warming is happening.

The only arguments that I have put forth are those that believe that the subject is still worth discussing, which it is, and also point out possible alterior motives for this sudden push to silence critics. Thats it. Anything else you've read into them is your own creation.

I understand all that, but I think you're being disingenuous. Global warming is worth discussing, sure, but I'm not convinced that there really is much of a controversy in the scientific community about the basic tenets behind it.

Or let's just put it this way: Gore says that there is a general consensus in the scientific community on global warming. You say it's not settled and the science behind it isn't proven. To back yourself up, you've posted an article by Steven Milloy and a quote by an MIT professor. I've posted a link to a list of organizations and scientists on both sides of the debate, noting that the vast majority support the theory that global warming is happening and is caused by humans. So the question is whether we've been able to find reasonable opposition to the theory of global warming. If yes, then Gore is wrong and he's squelching a debate that should be happening. If no, then Gore is perhaps overzealous but not necessarily deceiving anybody when he says the debate is settled in the scientific community.

Which means the next question is whether Steven Milloy presents an at least reasonable argument against global warming. I thought he did at first, but the more I research the question, the more questions pop up in my head. And I don't mean stuff like, "I have some evidence which contradicts Milloy's evidence" or anything like that. For one thing, Milloy doesn't present any evidence. He has no citations. There's no way of knowing what his sources are for any particular claim or calculation and so unless you happen to be extremely familiar with the scientific literature (and I'm not), it's very difficult to verify anything he says. That might be enough to disqualify him right there, but just to be thorough I tried to figure out where he's getting some of his data. In one instance, I think I caught him in a basic math error (I have to double-check). What's more damning is that at one point he criticizes a trend line in a report but neglects to mention that this trend line was presented as the most extreme case in the report and that another trend line, which Milloy doesn't mention, was presented as the most likely scenario. That kind of selective quoting just isn't allowable in scientific debate.

I don't want to go around accusing people of being deceptive, but I've found myself coming to the conclusion that Milloy's article and the arguments contained within would not pass muster in a peer-reviewed journal. It certainly looks the part, but in the end it may simply be muddying the waters by raising doubts that shouldn't even be seriously considered (and that's no good for science either). I'll try to present what I've got tomorrow (couldn't get it done tonight). If I'm right, then Steven Milloy's article shouldn't be considered a serious rebuttal of global warming.

Here's what I'm driving at: if Steven Milloy is out, then as far as I know the only other reasonable opposition to the basic tenets of global warming comes from about a dozen individual scientists including Alfred Sloane (by the way, it appears that Sloane's research mostly involves the effect of volcanic activity on the atmosphere. That's well and good, but it's a different field of study than the effect of carbon emissions on the atmosphere). And if that's all true, then Gore is within his rights to say that the debate is largely settled in the scientific community because as smart as those dozen individuals may be, hundreds of their equally smart peers are agreed on the issue. And it's also fair for Gore to say that there's enough evidence for us to act on it instead of continuing to wait and debate some more. Now, if Gore is saying (verbatim) that every person who argues against global warming must be a corporate shill, then obviously that's taking things too far, and I'm not going to try to defend it. On the other hand, given what I think I've found about Steven Milloy, maybe a little paranoia is understandable.

Edit: Actually, I should have said that Steven Milloy has very few citations. He links to other web pages every once in a while and he sometimes names the scientist in some study or other, but without a bibliography of some sort, it's hard to dig up the actual article he's referring to.