Archive for the 'Fighting Back' Category

Bill to repeal bulb ban introduced

January 7, 2011

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) introduced a bill to repeal the 2007 law that bans incandescent bulbs starting in 2012.

Here is Barton’s media release:

Barton leads Republican effort to repeal light bulb ban

WASHINGTON: Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, Michael Burgess, R-Texas, and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, joined 12 other Republicans to reintroduced the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act or BULB Act, H.R. 91.

The BULB Act repeals Subtitle B of Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which is a de facto ban on the incandescent light bulb.

“This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom. Voters sent us a message in November that it is time for politicians and activists in Washington to stop interfering in their lives and manipulating the free market. The light bulb ban is the perfect symbol of that frustration. People don’t want congress dictating what light fixtures they can use,” said Rep. Barton. “Traditional incandescent bulbs are cheap and reliable. Alternatives, including the most common replacement Compact Fluorescent Lights or CFL’s, are more expensive and health hazards – so why force them on the American people? From the health insurance you’re allowed to have, to the car you can drive, to the light bulbs you can buy, Washington is making too many decisions that are better left to you and your family.”

“Thousands of American jobs have been shipped overseas as a direct consequence of this light bulb provision in the Democrats’ 2007 energy bill,” Burgess said. “I have stated all along that exposing our citizens to the harmful effects of the mercury contained in CFL light bulbs, which are being manufactured in China, is likely to pose a hazard for years to come. Not only would this bill be better for the environment, but it would be one step to bringing jobs back to America.”

“These are the kinds of regulations that make the American people roll their eyes. It is typical of a ‘big Washington’ solution to a non-existent problem. In this case it manifests itself as an overreach into every American home, one that ships good jobs overseas and infuriates the American consumer,” added Rep. Blackburn.

Other co-sponsors include: Reps. Todd Akin (R-Missouri), Rob Bishop (R-Utah), Paul Broun (R-Georgia), Ann Marie Buerkle (R-New York), Dan Burton (R-Indiana), Howard Coble (R-North Carolina), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Tom McClintock (R-), Ron Paul (R-Texas), Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana), Cliff Stearns (R-Florida), and Don Young (R-Alaska).

Alternatives to traditional incandescent bulbs have many drawbacks. They are all considerably more expensive. The most common alternative, compact florescent light bulbs have a number of problems:

  • Most CFLs are not manufactured in the United States. A recent Washington Post story reported that GE is shuttering a plant in Winchester, Va., killing 200 jobs in the process.
    CFLs contain mercury and have to be disposed of carefully. The amount of mercury in one bulb is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels. The EPA recommends an elaborate cleanup ritual, including throwing away any clothes or bedding that has come in direct contact with the mercury from the bulb.
  • CFLs are not designed to be turned off and on frequently; the lifespan of a CFL may be reduced by up to 85 percent if you switch it off and on a lot.
  • People with certain health conditions can be harmed by CFLs. Reactions range from disabling eczema-like reactions, to light sensitivities that can lead to skin cancer.
  • The Energy Star program warns that CFLs can overheat and smoke.

Don’t miss GreenHellBlog’s exclusive: EPA’s Mercurial Hypocrisy.

House GOP offers bill to block EPA climate rules (Update)

January 6, 2011

Update: The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin reports:

Three Republican House members — Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Shelley Moore Capito (W. Va.) and Ted Poe (Tex.) have each introduced separate bills aimed at blocking EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The three measures hamstring the agency’s authority in different ways: Blackburn’s would “amend the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act,” even though the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that they are; Capito’s would delay EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and methane for two years; and Poe’s would prohibit any agency funding “to be used to implement or enforce a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases.”

While Capito’s bill is the most modest of the bunch, the West Virginia lawmaker explained in a statement that she has introduced a more limited bill because she thinks it has enough votes to pass and block initiatives such as new EPA permitting requirements that now require major new greenhouse gas emitters to show how they would use the best available current technology to lower their carbon footprint.

The Hill reports,

Dozens of Republicans used the opening day of the new Congress on Wednesday to introduce legislation that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, sponsored the bill. The measure’s 46 co-sponsors are all Republicans except for Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.).

Co-sponsors include Oversight and Government Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). Absent from the list at the moment: Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who is weighing his approach to stifling greenhouse-gas rules he alleges will burden the economy.

The bill would amend the Clean Air Act to declare that greenhouse gases are not subject to the law, according to a brief description in the Congressional Record…

What’s Fred Upton waiting for? Isn’t this what he said he wanted?

On the Senate side, meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told Fox News yesterday,

“We are going to introduce legislation that says all regulations should sunset. If the EPA writes a regulation, it expires in six months, unless Congress votes on it and approves it.”

Let’s hope he presses hard for such legislation.

JunkScience to Al Gore: En garde!

November 23, 2010

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — today launched the web site as a response to, Al Gore’s attack on Koch Industries for opposing climate alarmism.

“I think Al Gore may come to regret his desperate and juvenile attack on Koch Industries,” said publisher Steve Milloy. “Gore has now inspired us to accumulate documented facts about Gore and to present them to the public in a single web site dedicated to spotlighting Gore’s habitual hypocrisy, dishonesty and creepiness.” Milloy added.

The Gore attack on Koch Industries is just the opening salvo in what Milloy expects to be an ugly campaign of personal attacks that Gore and other anti-fossil fuel activists and business interests seem likely to run over the next two years.

“Media reports indicate that environmental activists will be working to make political gains in the 2012 elections so that they can get their agenda back on track in 2013,” Milloy observed. “Between now and the 2012 elections, I expect that Al Gore and his allies will conduct a slash-and-burn attack campaign against their opponents,” said Milloy.

But as the defeat of cap-and-trade indicates, Milloy and his allies are up to the challenge.

“In early 2009, conventional wisdom was that cap-and-trade was a done deal,” said Milloy. “But hard work by skeptics, along with a lousy economy, the rise of tea parties and the Climategate expose, ultimately drove a stake through junk science-fueled and economy-killing cap-and-trade,” noted Milloy.

Surprisingly, Milloy credits environmentalists with helping to defeat their own agenda.

“Al Gore is one of the most polarizing personalities in American politics and it was always a mystery why the environmental movement allowed Gore to co-opt their Marxist-socialist movement so he could to advance his personal profiteering – but it made arguing the skeptics’ position much easier and we thank them for it,” Milloy added.

One of the facts on is Al Gore’s braggadocio that poets will be singing his praises 1,000 years from now.

“Meantime, the rest of us can look forward to the next two years of hilarious Gore gaffs. If the greens are lucky, maybe the they’ll get their agenda back on track in a thousand years,” Milloy concluded.

Steve Milloy is the publisher of and author of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them (Regnery 2009).

Must-see video: I’m a denier…

November 9, 2010

… from our friends at Minnesotans for Global Warming (

The Junkman goes to vote…

November 2, 2010

… behind the green curtain in the Peoples Republic of Maryland.

As I pulled into the garage at my polling place, the University of Maryland at Shady Grove, I was prevented from parking my Ford Expedition in the first convenient space because the best spaces were for:

Note that these spaces weren’t even for the handicapped or pregnant women. They for politically correct greenie-weenies who drive cars like this:

I hope the driver of that car never has the misfortune of running into anything larger than a Kleenex box.

So I was forced to park on the 4th level — I mean the “Recycling” level:

The sickness of it all became clear when I got off the elevator on the first level — I mean the “Earth” level:

Fully primed to vote, I completed my mission of voting against every sitting comrade in the PRM.

BTW, in the spirit of Alaskans-who-think-they-are-entitled-to-be-Senators, I wrote in Lisa Murkowski for Maryland Attorney General. The sitting comrade-AG had no other competition.

LOL of the day: EWG claims EPA panel nominee is biased

October 7, 2010

October 8, 2010

Mr. Edward Hanlon
Designated Federal Official
Science Advisory Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Mail Code 1400R

Washington, D.C. 20460-4164

Dear Mr. Hanlon,

This letter responds to the comments of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) concerning the nomination of Dr. Michael Economides to serve on the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Panel for the Review of the Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan.

The EWG objects to the nomination of Dr. Economides because, by authoring an op-ed that was published in the Syracuse Post-Standard on September 13, 2010, “Mr. Economides appears to be biased in favor of a predetermined outcome to EPA’s study…”

If such a standard — i.e., publicly expressing an opinion relating to an area of one’s expertise — is grounds for disqualification, then the SAB will need to disqualify many of its current members.

For example, consider the following examples of current SAB members with well-known opinions and biases:

  • Gina Solomon, a member of the SAB Drinking Water Committee is an employee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental activist group. Ms. Solomon, herself a self-acknowledged activist, has a long history of making alarmist statements to the media on a variety of environmental topics — too many to do justice in this short letter. But one may get a flavor of her various biases from her blog (
  • Arnold Schecter, a member of the SAB Dioxin Review Panel, has many times expressed his alarmist opinions regarding dioxin. Mr. Schecter’s Facebook page, not surprisingly, reveals that he is a fan of the Environmental Working Group — which perhaps is why EWG hasn’t requested to have Mr. Schecter disqualified from serving on the Dioxin Review Panel.
  • Bruce Lanphear, a member of the SAB Lead Review Panel, has often expressed alarmist opinions about exposure to lead, including that “there is no safe exposure to lead.” Mr. Lanphear has also called for a ban on commercial uses of lead.

There is no question that many other members of the SAB and its ad hoc committees and panels could be exposed for the apparent wrong of expressing an opinion.

If Dr. Economides is to be disqualified for holding opinions in his field of expertise, is the EPA prepared to similarly disqualify the above-mentioned individuals as well as all other SAB participants who can be shown to have publicly expressed their opinions?



Steve Milloy

Lisa Jackson, Administrator
Angela Nugent, DFO SAB

UVA defies Mann fraud investigation

May 28, 2010

The University of Virginia has decided to protect hockey stick junk scientist Michael Mann from a fraud investigation by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Click here for the UVA court petition.

Click here for why Cuccinelli is doing the right thing.

Academics do not have the right to defraud the public. Universities ought not shield academics from rightful public scrutiny.

The People v. The Hockey Stick Felony?

May 12, 2010

My column in today’s Washington Times is dedicated to those skeptics and libertarians who, confused about Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of Michael Mann, are aiding and abetting the enemy.

Tree Ring Circus
By Steve Milloy
May 12, 2010, Washington Times

Are academic scientists some special sub-species of humans who are beyond suspicion and above the law? That is the question now being played out in a drama between Virginia Attorney General Ken Cucinelli and the dead-end defenders of global warming’s poster junk scientist, Michael Mann.

Cucinelli is under assault by global warming alarmist brigades and the American Civil Liberties Union for launching an investigation into whether any fraud against taxpayers occurred with respect to Mann’s hiring by the University of Virginia and his receipt of government grants. Cuccinelli recently sent UVA a civil investigative demand (CID) requesting e-mails and other documents pertaining to Mann.

Cuccinelli’s rationale is simple to understand: Mann’s claim-to-fame — the infamous “hockey stick” graph — is so bogus that one cannot help but wonder whether it is intentional fraud.

Developed in the late-1990s while Mann was at the University of Massachusetts, his hockey stick graph purports to show that average global temperature was fairly stable over the past millennium and up until the 20 the century, when it spiked up impliedly because of human activity. The hockey stick was latched onto by the alarmist community, incorporated into government and United Nations assessments of climate science and held out to the public (particularly by Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth”) as proof that humans were destroying the planet.

But by the mid-2000s the hockey stick graph began to be revealed for what it was — pure bunk.

Critics of the hockey stick graph first became suspicious because it failed to show two well-known periods of dramatic swings in global temperature — the so-called Medieval Optimum and the Little Ice Age. Mann’s indignant refusal to share his data and methods with critics only added fuel to the fire. Eventually, it was discovered that the computer model that produced the hockey stick would produce a hockey stick graph regardless of what data was input. But it gets worse.

Mann apparently created the hockey stick by cherry-picking data he liked and deleting data he didn’t like. While the vast majority of the hockey stick is based on temperature data extrapolated from tree rings going back hundreds of years, the tip of the blade (representing the late 20th century) was temperature data taken from thermometers. Past the obvious apples-and-oranges problem, as it turns out, Mann appended the thermometer data to the hockey stick at a point at which the tree ring data actually shows cooling. This cooling trend data was then deleted. This is what is referred to by the now-famous Climate-gate phrase “Mike’s Nature trick to … hide the decline.”

Mann’s defenders characterize this deletion of data as an elegant statistical technique. There is, however, nothing sophisticated, much less innocent about it. Contrary to Mann’s defenders, the hockey stick has never been vindicated by anyone. If nothing else, proof of its discredit lies in the fact that no one, not even the ethically challenged United Nations, relies on it anymore as evidence of manmade global warming.

Mann’s name-making hockey stick work occurred while he was at the University of Massachusetts, after which he was hired by the taxpayer-funded UVA. Did UVA hire Mann under the illusion that his hockey stick was a legitimate scientific achievement? Did Mann receive taxpayer-funded grants based on what amounts to scientific misconduct? These are legitimate inquiries — but not to everyone.

Left-wing academics, global warming alarmists, and the ACLU object to Cucinelli’s probe. They cast aspersions such as “witch hunt,” McCarthyism,” and “abuse of office.” In their less hysteric moments, they claim Cuccinelli threatens academic freedom. This is all so much rot.

Some scientists have actually been known to commit scientific misconduct tantamount to fraud. A Tulane researcher was found guilty of misconduct by the federal Office of Scientific Integrity in the late 1990s for fabricating data about pesticides being dangerous hormonal system disrupters. Don’t forget the South Korean researcher that was indicted for claiming false advances in stem cell research. Only political correctness saved a University of Pittsburgh researcher from conviction during the 1990s of manipulating data allegedly linking lead-based paint with lower IQs.

Believe it or not, scientists are just like the rest of the population — a mixture of good and bad. Mann’s hockey stick is such bad science that it compels the question, “Why?” Would UVA have hired Mann and would government grants have been awarded to him had the truth about the hockey stick been known by university and state decision-makers at the time? Were they intentionally deceived?

As the Climategate scandal has revealed, the climate alarmist mob is, at the very least, devious and unethical. It has conspired to silence its critics and to dispense with the normal give-and-take of the scientific process — all the while trumpeting the junkiest of science in trying to frighten the public and politicians into keeping the grant money flowing.

Have some of the climate mob’s members acted criminally as well? No one knows at this point. But through his hockey stick shenanigans, Mann has certainly provided Cuccinelli with “probable cause” to consider the possibility. A thorough investigation by someone not in cahoots with the climate mob is the only way to answer legitimate questions related to the expenditure of taxpayer money.

Steve Milloy publishes and is the author of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them (Regnery 2009).

Penn State primes for the Climategate whitewash

February 3, 2010

Here’s our early take on today’s Penn State report on its Michael Mann investigation:

  • The review apparently extended little further than the Climategate e-mails themselves, an interview with Mann, materials submitted by Mann and whatever e-mails and comments floated in over the transom. Not thorough at all.

    One of the Penn State investigative committee members, Henry Foley, did endeavor to get external views on Michael Mann — unfortunately, they came from:

    • Gerald North, who dismissed Climategate in a Washington Post interview a only few days after the news of the scandal first broke and who assisted in the National Research Council’s 2006 effort to whitewash Mann’s hockey stick; and
    • Donald Kennedy, a former editor of Science magazine and an outspoken zealot for climate alarmism.
  • Comically, the report explains at length how the use of the word “trick” can mean a “clever device.” The report ignores that it was a “trick… to hide the decline.” There is no mention of “hide the decline” in the report.
  • The report concludes there is no evidence to indicate that Mann intended to delete e-mails. But this is contradicted by the plain language and circumstances surrounding Mann’s e-mail exchange with Phil Jones — See page 9 of Climategate & Penn State: The Case for an Independent Investigation.
  • The report dismisses the accusation that Mann conspired to silence skeptics by stating, “one finds enormous confusion has been caused by interpretations of the e-mails and their content.” Maybe there wouldn’t be so much “confusion” if PSU actually did a thorough investigation rather than just relying on the word of Michael Mann.
  • Although PSU is continuing the investigation, its reason is not to investigate Mann so much as it is to exonerate climate alarmism. On page 9 of the report, it says that “questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct… may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist… and public trust in science in general and climate science specifically.”

There needs to be a thorough and independent investigation of Climategate. PSU’s report is a primer for a whitewash.

CAUTION: Don’t be fooled by the Penn State media release. It gives the impression that PSU’s investigation into Mann will continue. But if you read the report, PSU has essentially already exonerated him. Moreover, PSU has changed the nature of the investigation away from Climategate being a scandal and toward Climategate being a public relations problem for global warming alarmism.

SEC Climate Disclosure Rules Shaped By Global Warming Skeptics

February 1, 2010

From PRNewswire:

SEC Climate Disclosure Rules Shaped By Global Warming Skeptics; Defunct Conservative Activist Mutual Fund Makes Lasting Impact on Climate Debate

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Though it no longer exists, the impact of the Free Enterprise Action Fund on the global warming debate was concretized last week when the Securities and Exchange Commission decided to require that publicly-owned companies disclose the risks of global warming laws and regulation.

“The Free Enterprise Action Fund turned the tables on the green activists and the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) companies that were seeking to use the SEC to advance the global warming agenda,” said Steve Milloy, who along with Tom Borelli, co-managed the Free Enterprise Action Fund.

“Rather than forcing publicly-owned companies into helping make climate change regulation inevitable as the greens tried to do, our efforts have resulted in the SEC requiring companies to expose the business-killing nature of junk science-fueled climate regulation,” Milloy added.

One month after green groups petitioned the SEC to require publicly-owned companies to disclose the physical risks of climate change — in hopes pressuring companies to come to terms with green groups on climate regulation — the Free Enterprise Action Fund petitioned the SEC to require companies to disclose the financial risks to themselves of global warming regulation. The Fund’s petition placed pressure on the greens to modify their demands to include a call for disclosure of the financial risks of regulation.

Last week, the SEC announced that it would issue guidance to publicly-owned corporations requiring disclosure of climate-related risks.

“It’s clear from the SEC’s press release that the Fund’s call for financial disclosure of the risks of regulation outweighed in the Commission’s mind the call for disclosure of the physical risks of climate change,” said Milloy.

“This is significant going forward since companies lobbying for global warming regulation, like the USCAP companies, will be loathe to disclose the risks of such regulation to their bottom lines,” said Milloy.

Milloy says we should watch for support for climate regulation from publicly-owned companies to be on the wane. “USCAP companies will no longer be able to say that they must have climate regulation to avoid hypothetical physical risks without also disclosing that climate regulation imposes on them much greater and more certain financial risks.”

“Add in Climategate, glaciergate and the general unraveling of global warming alarmism, and publicly-owned companies oughtn’t want to touch climate regulation with a ten-foot pole,” Milloy concluded.

The Free Enterprise Action Fund was a publicly traded mutual fund from March 2005 until July 2009, at which time it was merged with the Congressional Effect Fund.

The Free Enterprise Action Fund October 2007 petition to the SEC may be viewed at:
SOURCE Free Enterprise Action Fund