Talk:Steven Milloy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

graphical presentation of evidence

I took out:

Milloy has also criticised the graphical presentation of evidence used to support the conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change and other climate scientists regarding the relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming. [1]

I wouldn't be surprised if Milloy had done what is claimed, but that link doesn't support it. William M. Connolley 22:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

If you scroll right down to the bottom, you can find a complaint about the fact that the zero is suppressed on a graph of CO2 concentrations. I gave that in place of some text that was totally unsupported by the link, but I'm happy to have it deleted. JQ 00:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dioxins

According the to dioxin article, "out of the 210 PCDD/F compounds in total, only 17 congeners (7 PCDDs and 10 PCDFs) have chlorine atoms in the relevant positions to be considered toxic by the NATO/CCMS international toxic equivalent (I-TEQ) scheme." So wouldn't it make a difference which dioxin compound was found in Ben and Jerry's? He never mentions which one on his web site. He just keeps saying, dioxin. Am I thinking about this correctly?

Article is biased against Milloy

There is no section to put stuff like the following:

Will the World Resources Institute be commenting on its recent pronouncement that even if all greenhouse gas emissions were immediately halted, it would have no impact on climate in the foreseeable future? (Yet such a prohibition would surely devastate the global economy.) [2]

-response to above. I'd like to see where they got that statement. I've never read anything like that in a CREDIBLE PEER REVIEW journal.

I would prefer that we mention Milloy's views first, followed by two separate sections of criticism:

1. criticism that says we should simply ignore everything Milloy claims, since his "industry ties" render all his arguments baseless, i.e., that he is "obviously" nothing more than an industry shill.
2. criticsm which rebuts his claims on their merits (not his supposed "motivation"), i.e., counters his arguments with science.

I think that everything in the universe is made of marshmallows. If you don't think that's true then you're using a POV. Seriously, though, i agree with what you suggest. However, i don't think i should be the one to try to take anything that comes out of his mouth seriously.

Sparsefarce 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd take you more seriously if you had graphs and tables about that (grin).

Milloy's web site quotes and cites U.S. goverment scientists (or university scientist who get federal and state funds) who dispute the media-supported UN hype about global warming. --Uncle Ed 19:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The article starts with a summary of Milloy's position, which is that the research he dislikes is [[junk science], and follows with the criticism which is that his writing is worthless since it simply reflects the interests of his paymasters in the tobacco industry, and a history of his deplorable personal behavior. I removed the word "shill" earlier, but I'd be happy to put it back in. Apart from that, what is your problem with the article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism

While I know that it's painful, I have to agree with Ace-o-aces in many respects. My perception of Steven Milloy is one of a genius, I give him credit for that. I like that last sentence because it is an example of an emotionally evocative statement. This statement sounds like praise of a person who is (arguably) causing the world great harm. I am willing to wager that when most people who care greatly about the environment and know Steven Milloy's work, hear me say that he is a genius, they will feel like "I support him and I'm about to tear down every pathetic argument that you've clung to in order to vainly claim that you aren't just another idiot who fell for the global warming scare". See! That's another emotionally evocative statement. I'm getting good huh?

In my view, the type of work that Milloy does is targeted at invoking these more belligerent responses -- it makes you look like a fool (and makes Ace-o-aces trash your article in the discussion page :). If you want to combat serious FUD, you have to get serious.

• Be factual
• Cleans your arguments of fallacies. Fighting fire with fire in this case is just going to make a bigger fire.
• Be objective, keep emotions out of it. Emotionally evocative statements are great tools to derail an argument by picking at ones insecurities and performing manipulations. This is a fine science that I've spent many years perfecting (before realizing that it just wasn't a cool thing to do). Don't try to beat him at his own game, you will loose. He's one of the best.

Beat him at his own *shame* instead. (Cute pun huh?) But if you want to hold a person accountable for their "crimes", address the crimes, not the person. Finely comb through the fallacies, misinformation, patterns of fallacies, etc., in an objective manner so as to present the reader with a truly unbiased look at his work and it's effects on the world (where possible). I think that it's fine to examine his financial links, but don't draw the illogical conclusion that just because he gets paid by Exxon-Mobile, that he is working to cover up the effects that petroleum based fuels have on the environment. Do you see what I mean? Both of these may be the case, but it is a logical fallacy to conclude that one proves the other. This doesn't mean you can't indicate a suspected link between him getting money from the oil guys and lying on national television about the reality of global warming.

Daniel Santos 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Journalistic ethics

I've added a referenced section on the issues of journalistic ethics raised by Milloy's critics. MastCell 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Corporate activism

I've added a description of the activities of the Free Enterprise Action Fund JQ 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Asbestos

I ran "what links here' to find a few more references. Even for Milloy, the asbestos stuff is low. I've also been looking for positive stuff to add in the interests of balance, but haven't found anything so far except endorsements from similarly dubious sources. JQ 00:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is there a criticism section here? The whole article is critical. 147.114.226.172 12:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

New Intro

I have no particular interest in Mr Milloy, but I think that the intro should be an intro. The actual details of Milloy's issues should be kept to the body of the text. Sparkzilla 16:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The reorganization is fine, but you've broken quite a few reference links in doing so. If you're going to make large-scale edits, please double-check that the references still work, otherwise it creates a huge amount of work for others. MastCell 17:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the references. I will be more careful in future. Glad you like the changes though. Sparkzilla 00:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem... it wasn't actually that big a deal. Sorry for being cranky about it. MastCell 01:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

DDT

I am surprised that there is no mention of DDT in the Junk Science section, as this seems to be Milloy's No 1 issue. anyone care to add the section? Sparkzilla 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

DDT is mentioned under "The Environment" (super-heading "Junk Science")... but briefly. If you'd like to expand it, go for it. It used to point that Milloy said DDT was "banned", then mention that it's not actually banned... but that seemed too petty, so I shortened it. My sense is that his "#1 issue" is really global warming denialismskepticism (it's plastered all over the junkscience.com main page as I look right now)... but he's certainly taken on the DDT issue as well. MastCell 03:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the this stuff "This claim can, however, be substantiated by the World Health Organization which advocates the use of interior spraying of DDT to prevent malaria. According to the WHO website, DDT can reduce transmission of malaria by 90% while presenting no environmental danger to either wildlife or humans" since the what the WHO actually claims is that "Programmatic evidence shows that correct and timely use of indoor residual spraying can reduce malaria transmission by up to 90 percent." see http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/ Note they don't single out DDT specifically.Yilloslime 01:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

creationism

His reponse to the question of Human evolution is so full of errors, and ironicly for msomeone who basis their career on exposing "junk science", it shows he has a poor understanding of how the scientific method works. Is their someway to indicate this without violating NPOV? Ace-o-aces 16:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No... take a look at WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. Admittedly, Milloy is less heinous that Saddam Hussein (the example given on the NPOV page), but the point is the same. In the case of someone like Milloy, it's appropriate to focus on the facts and minimize our interpretation - the facts here certainly do speak volumes for themselves. MastCell 23:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

His view on the topic is not shared by the vast majority of the scientific community, and as noted in the policy, pointing this out is both appropriate and necessary in order to avoid undue weight. FeloniousMonk 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to end the section by saying something like, "Milloy's view on the topic is not shared by hte vast majority of the scientific community, and his use of the term "hyposthesis" to characterise the theory of evolution would also be regarded as incorrect." Ace-o-aces 03:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say not to include the above. To be fair, creationism has never been a big topic that Milloy has addressed - the quote in question is pulled from a lengthy Q&A. It's appropriate to highlight the quote as is done here, as a notable example in which his supposed "skepticism" is MIA, but expanding on it as if he's a major proponent of creationism is probably overkill. But that's just my 2 cents. MastCell 03:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Having found and inserted that quote, I agree with MastCell. Readers who need to be told that creationism contradicts most modern science probably won't get much out of this piece of evidence. Taking the page as a whole, I think we can WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. JQ 08:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree wtih MastCell. However, I might add that evolution is not a theory. That is not relevant to this article, but the noticeable lack of "skepticism" on this topic is relevant, and notable.Jance 05:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Exxon paid him?

I have not seen anything indicating this in the discussion or the article's citations so I removed one reference. I may have missed it somewhere. --Theblog 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The money from ExxonMobil went to a non-profit operated out of Milloy's house, not directly to Milloy, so the link is not as direct as with the tobacco money. So your edit makes sense to me. MastCell 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WTC Exploitation

I removed the exploitation part because it is not clear how he exploited it for his own gain and I think that would be a judgement call that only he could clear up anyway. The entire section probably should be removed or reduced as it contains no details or background about the supposed wrong doing by Milloy, but then has a paragraph quote by the people he criticised.--Theblog 17:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the title change is a good one. As far as wrongdoing, it's not so much that Milloy did something "wrong" as that he was criticized for exploiting the tragedy. Whether that criticism is notable enough to include, I think, is a valid issue for discussion. MastCell 18:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Milloy's own statements on the topic are described and linked earlier in the article.JQ 19:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I found more information on Milloy's Asbestos claims here [3]. I think this would be useful to start with.Ace-o-aces 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the criticism is a stretch to be notable, but until someone reorganizes the whole thing I think it might as well stay. I did change the intro from: Milloy drew criticism for immediately blaming the collapse of the World Trade Center on the anti-asbestos movement. Laurie Kazan-Allen of the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat wrote:

to: Milloy drew criticism for claiming that if asbestos, instead of a substitute, was used as insulation for all floors of the World Trade Center buildings (asbestos was used as insulation in both buildings up to mid-level floors) it could have saved lives.

Again, it is possible that I missed something, but I do not think the first statement accurately reflects the information from the sourced articles. --Theblog 23:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Other journalists

I've restored the section on other journalists who have been found to have conflicts of interest similar to Milloy's. Since the article states that such a conflict is "widely considered to be a breach of journalistic ethics", it seems entirely relevant to note, by way of supporting this assertion, that a number of prominent journalists have been fired for such conflicts. I suppose it could be shortened, and the names removed, to say something like, "several other prominent journalists have been fired when such conflicts came to light", and then cite the sources without naming names in the body of the article... but I think since we're saying that a conflict is a big deal, it's important to support that assertion with examples/evidence. MastCell 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I left/put in the phrase: Journalists who take money to write pieces favorable to corporate interests are widely considered to be breaching journalistic ethics. I feel this is good enough criticism as a solid journalism ethics source (or two) is there. The rest is more criticism of Fox News and I would say more appropriate for the Fox News article than a reflection on Steve Milloy. The other journalists fired (not by Fox News) for representing corporations or the "Bush Administration" (BTW is it just the Bush administration or all administrations that fall under this rule?) do nothing other than make the article look more biased. --Theblog 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. It's relevant to all administrations, but I can't recall any previous administration blurring the lines quite so aggressively between journalism and paid hackery - but maybe that's just recentism on my part. Maybe we should go ahead and remove those other journalists, as you had done. You're probably right about criticism of Fox News belonging elsewhere - I guess the relevant issue is that Milloy continues to be presented (and present himself) as a "junk science expert", despite verified conflicts of interest, which seems relevant to Milloy as well as Fox News. MastCell 21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back, I still believe it and many other sections of the article might violate WP:SYNT --Theblog 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That was why I had included the quote from Thacker in The New Republic, to make clear that reliable and independent sources had made the connection between Milloy accepting $$$ and an ethical breach on his and FoxNews' part - to demonstrate that's it's not original research. It's fine to remove the TNR quote in the interest of space or relevancy, and I like the edits you've made so far, but if there's a question of OR then it should go back. MastCell 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

In the world according to Milloy, any scientific study that does not support the world view where all chemicals are safe is "junk science", all environmentalists are alarmist, and pollution and second hand smoke are harmless.

I see nothing to support this claim, and I'm an avid reader of Milloy's website. This is rather a distortion of his view.

It's not a statement in the article, but a link to an external site with a critical view. If you want to debate it, you should do so at the site concerned.JQ 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Milloy says rather that environmentalist exaggerate hazards of trace amounts of chemicals. He does not say that they are "safe" in all amounts.

This distorted charge against Milloy is a proxy fight over the "precautionary principle" which environmentalists use in their claims that "no dose is safe". That itself is junk science, because as Wikipedia's Toxicology article clearly points out, the dose makes the poison. See also linear no-threshold hypothesis. --Uncle Ed 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

This quote from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons indicates to me that the article needs a full rewrite. --Uncle Ed 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not the way the article is written but the facts reported there that make it sound like "the junkman" is the world's biggest hypocrite. Maybe you are aware some facts that would contradict this - for example, instances where Milloy pointed out use of junk science by corporations to downplay environmental risk. If so, they would be a useful addition to the article.JQ 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, you've totally lost me. As best I can tell, you added the line about "the world according to Milloy". And now it seems you're holding that up as the essence of what's wrong with the article. Am I missing something? Criticism of Milloy is real phenomenon, and the criticisms in the article are reliably sourced. It has nothing to do with the merits or flaws of the linear no-threshold hypothesis, and everything to do with WP:V. Certainly the negative information predominates; if you have some more pro-Milloy sourced material, or would like to rephrase the criticism, then please propose it. MastCell 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at by me adding the line. There was the beginning of a critique of Malloy, from what looks like an ideological opponent - not a regular journalistic or objective source. I checked the ref and tried to flesh out the footnote, so I could see what the substance of their argument was. Why is that puzzling to you?

Apparently Milloy's opponents are accusing him of "calling the kettle black". Our readers might want to know if this is merely tit for tat, or if there's something to it.

What's our best strategy on a professional bio for this man? Shall we list a few of the undisputed examples he gives of junk science? And then a few disputed ones?

Or shall we cast the entire article as "See what a con artist he is?" Or what?

By the way, are his environmentalist opponents primary upset because

1. He takes money from industry?
2. He exposes environmental junk science?
3. He pretends to expose environmental junk science, but actually peddles it himself?
4. He takes the opposite sides on controversial issues where reasonable people can have legitimate disagreements?

Don't answer based on your personal opinion, because what runs against your personal bent is not relevant to Wikipedia (as FM just now reminded me). We all need to keep a check on our personal viewpoints here and remember that this is not a playing field for POV pushers to score points. We are trying to write a neutral article.

Let's agree on how we are to characterize Steven Milloy:

• Do we call him a hypocrite (supporting the viewpoint of his opponents)?
• Or erely quote them as branding him a hypocrite?

Do we give good examples of junk science he has exposed?

Or just assert that just about every example he gives is disputed?

• If so, shall we characterize the people who dispute him as "honest, objective" sources with no ax to grind - or as ideological opponents, or what?

I am trying to keep my personal opinions out of this. I suggest we all do so. --Uncle Ed 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Section heading

I was thinking that we should retitle the section "False Biographical Claims" to just "Biographical Claims". It seems less POV, and the sourced information in the section is unchanged. I made such an edit, but it was reverted. Can I get thoughts on the change from other editors? MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell's reasoning. --Theblog 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's under "Criticism", which reduces the POV problem somewhat, but on balance I agree with MastCell. The information in the section is enough for readers to make up their own minds.JQ 21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make the edit again; if anyone disagrees strongly, please leave a note here. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)