About JunkScience

34 responses to “About JunkScience”

Michael E. Marotta | June 4, 2011 at 3:42 pm |

We all must choose our battles and you are achieving good things with your hard work. I was surprised not to find Robert L. Park’s book, Voodoo Science here. I read this in a graduate class in “Ethics in Physics.” We also read Plastic Fantastic by Eugenie Samuel Reich. Both of those – and the general tenor of the class – tied back to another grad class I had in criminology, “Miscarriages of Justice.” Junk science in the courtroom is one of the factors in wrongful convictions. Regression memories and hypnosis, fiber and hair matching, fingerprints (widely misused and never validated), shoe prints and tire prints, handwriting analysis, racial and psychological profiling, and other humbugs send people to prison. Falsified lab reports may well have sent men to their executions. (Read about Oklahoma City’s Joyce Gilchrist.)
Tom | July 21, 2011 at 8:48 pm |

Is Protandim legitimate?
Kenneth Chilton, Ph.D., Lindenwood University | July 29, 2011 at 6:00 pm |

In his July 28 article for the Washington Times, Steve Milloy makes a powerful case for leaving the NAAQS for ozone alone or weakening it based on an easily understood analysis of the public health evidence — chamber tests of heavily exercising subjects. How can anyone claim that Americans are better off in any dimension by spending huge sums to try to lower a single pollutant below a level that already produces virtually no health benefits. Will this argument matter? Well, only if some legislators and a President actually do care about sanity and jobs.

Kenneth W. Chilton, PH.D.
Senior Environmental Fellow
ISEE
Dave Kleve | August 6, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

If the EPA can regulate CO2, how long will it be before they regulate water vapor which is emitted by Hydrogen powered cars and has a bigger impact on atmospheric heat retention than CO2?
- Geoff West | February 19, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
  
  Water vapor, as a heavier than air molecule that has a propensity to aggregate, is self-modulating via cloud formation and precipitation. If CO2 and other greenhouse *gasses* behaved similarly, there would be no concerns about limiting their production. (But they don’t.)
  - Auntie Tyranny | April 22, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    
    My Geoff..You sound so cerebral..Observing local weather forecasts shows me an otherwise cold night,is not as cold if you have cloud cover.This observation may not be valid tho,because I have not received my research grant money yet.
John Carter | October 3, 2011 at 9:41 am |

What started to address a few environmental issues has morphed into a monster that aside from the damage it has caused American Industry has become the source for all kinds of chicanery and corruption. The EPA as well as the various state agencies of like ilk should be disbanded. This conclusion was reached after many years experience as an environmental consultant with the conclusion that the whole system is flawed.
John Carter | October 17, 2011 at 12:35 am |

Please contact me at geotekllc@gmail.com. This is about mining in the US and federal land grabs. A group of us are banding together to fight some of the policies that have been put in place, care to join us?
- Webster | March 14, 2012 at 8:59 am |
  
  Shows what you know about science.
  
  Dry air has a molecular mass of approximately 29.
  
  Water vapor has a molecular mass od 18, much lighter, meaning that the moe water vapor (humidity) in the air, the lighter the air is…
Kitty | November 17, 2011 at 1:47 pm |

Your a quack! Try working in those mines and living in the areas that those mines dump their sludge. Drink that water and then argue your case on how money is much more important.
Ryan | December 14, 2011 at 9:35 am |

Shouldn’t scientists be the ones evaluate junk science? Milloy doesn’t have the chops to understand what he is “debunking.”
- Steve Milloy | December 14, 2011 at 9:50 am |
  
  Despite Mr. Kearney’s e-mail address, it would appear that he works in the Obama administration’s Department of Energy in its Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office. JunkScience.com, of course, has been spotlighting the silliness and collapse of renewable energy. In contrast to some critics (ahem), however, we don’t do it in ad hominem fashion or by hiding behind a Yahoo! e-mail address.
  - Leonard L. Morey | June 20, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    
    Just because someone works for the government doesn’t mean you can use that to *attempt* to discredit his opinions when they go against yours!
    
    If he had been saying “the government lies to us, Al Gore is lobotomized, and Global Warming is a hoax” you would have never even suspected he was from the government. Or if you did, you wouldn’t have pointed that out, because it would have lent some credibility, however small, to your failed attempt at convincing people to renounce science in favor of quack weather observations not founded in truth!
- dutchtouch90 | March 13, 2012 at 10:02 am |
  
  ah of course….leave the “science” to the scientists? That kind of intellectual snobbery led to some pretty scary events throughout human history.
  Examples: Eugenics in America and Western Europe, Phrenology, Rise of “Scientific Racism” in 19th and 20th centuries.
  
  Here are a few good reads on the subject (one does not need to be a lab nerd in order to comprehend the ethical implications of applied “junk science”):
  
  Black, Edwin. “War Against The Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race.” Four Walls Eight Windows Publishing, 2003.
  
  Lombardo, Paul. “Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell.” Joh Hopkins University Press, 2008.
  
  Lafleur William. “Dark Medecine: Rationalizing Unethical Medical Research”
  
  Gould, Steven Jay. “The Mismeasure of Man” Norton and Company, 1981
  
  Kevles, Daniel. “In the Name of Eugenics”: Harvard University Press, 1985
  
  Note that these authors are mostly historians yet their “debunking” abilities are considerable despite their lack of obtaining the title “Scientist”. Everyone has the ability to debunk, and to claim that one does not have the proper “credentials” needed in order to write about something is just plain elitism.
Frank Dias | January 3, 2012 at 5:31 pm |

I STRONGLY AGREE, THE EPA AND CARB HERE IN CALIFORNIA IS THE BIGGEST SCAM IN THE USA..
THANKS TO ALL THE BERKELY GRADUATES THAT THINK A DIPLOMA MAKES THEM SUPREME. (NANCY)
(BOXER) ETC.
- Leonard L. Morey | June 20, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
  
  I think you left your caps lock on by mistake
  if not the calm down sir.
Johan S | January 13, 2012 at 2:22 am |

You write in your story about elelctricity bills: “Compact fluorescent lightbulbs, insulation, weather stripping, solar panels and other electricity conservation efforts all can entail significant added costs that can take many years to pay for themselves.” I take it that you do not seriously suggest that buildings should not have efficient insulation? Experiences from FInland – the coldest industrial country the world – unequivocally prove the benefits of good insulation; up to a point, of course. There certainly is an optimum amount of insulation, after which you get on the side of diminishing return.
Keep up the good work!
Shooter | January 14, 2012 at 10:08 pm |

Love the site, but sometimes I feel depressed about being an AGW sceptic. The reason? Conspiracy theorists. I’m sure you’ve gotten tons of comments by loonies saying it’s the work of Jews and that it’s a global agenda or that it’s the New World Order. I hope that most people are sane and disregard these people. It doesn’t give the sceptic community a good name.

You’re not a conspiracy theorist, are you? An insane question I know, and you do seem to be a sane and smart man you knows what he is talking about. Unfortunately, many people who debunk AGW are people like Alex Jones who relies on shock media to get money and faulty science.

Anyways, thank you for providing a site that is not a conspiracy site and instead offers good science. I hope one day that this AGW hysteria will die down.
Shooter | January 14, 2012 at 11:33 pm |

Oh, and this: http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html
CogWheeler | January 25, 2012 at 1:48 pm |

Hanging around a site like this should be depressing because instead of placing the burden on science to tell us exactly the effects of the steady, and sudden, rise to 389PPM, perhaps the burden should be on you folks to prove the null hypothesis that “rising levels of carbon dioxide will have no material negative effect”.

Let us know how you make out.
- Hanz O | May 17, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
  
  Your statement claims that the “rising levels of carbon dioxide will have no material negative impact” is a null hypothesis. ergo, the burden of proof is not on me but on you to prove that your hypothesis is correct. So where is the proof of your hypothesis?
  Given that there are plenty to disprove your hypothesis, why are you still going on and on about it?
  - Editor | May 17, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    
    Nice try guys but it is not CAGW skeptics who have raised a proposition. The null for business as usual would be along the lines of “cheap and abundant energy is good for society” and you could use comparisons of longevity, standards of living, productivity or basically whatever you liked to support the statement.
    
    Life on earth has already thrived with much higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and at significantly higher global mean temperatures, wider tropical and temperate zones, ice-free conditions… do these conditions fall within the bounds of “material negative effect”?
    
    CogWheeler’s proposed null fails to define “no material [negative] effect” and as such is useless – it is also not the stated position of any known CAGW skeptic.
    
    The active hypothesis proposed is that despite green plants and aerobic life on earth evolving with atmospheric carbon dioxide at least an order of magnitude higher than those foreseeable the fact of human contribution will cause catastrophe at much lower levels and for that we need to see proof.
Mike H. | February 10, 2012 at 3:37 pm |

I have Milloy’s book Green Hell. It is a good read and exposes the corruption in the AGW movement. I also suggest reading Dr. Roy Spencer’s book Climate Confusion and “Unstoppable Global Warming” by Singer and Avery. These books will enlighten you as to the science of the AGW hoax. Read and share the knowledge.
WTF | February 24, 2012 at 4:30 pm |

Mr. Malloy, Just caught you on Your World with Neil Cavuto. Glad to not count myself among those gullible enough to take you seriously. What’s Solyndra supposed to use in manufacturing solar panels – peanut butter and tofu? Enjoy your career as a useful tool in the Fox machine.
Stas Peterson | March 13, 2012 at 2:32 am |

The EPA and its Leftists have accomplished their primary aim. Thye have established that they can tax you or fine you, for CO2 “pollution”.

Now they can tax you for every breath you breathe, or exhale.

The Beatles said it all the in their anthem about the insatiable Taxman…”they’ll tax the air you breathe…”
tomwys | March 13, 2012 at 3:52 pm |

Humankind has moved forward both BECAUSE of education and DESPITE it! Lysenko corrupted Russian Genetics teaching, and perhaps Gore is having the same effect on Climate understanding. But the Russians came through scathed but not broken, and our students, though tainted by this foolishness, can see a steady continuing rise in CO2 and a clear flatline in surface temperatures over the last 16 years. Once they notice that Sea-Levels are just not rising according to the ridiculous predictions offered, their minds will seize upon the fact that they are being, and have been, misled. Most readers here know the taxation motivation for the corruption of climate science, and they will too.

Teachers who promote the AGW drivel will thoroughly deserve the future “dim bulb” esteem in which they will be held.
- Fresht | June 2, 2012 at 12:18 am |
  
  Christy is a rhino. The so-called conservatives who want him to ru for peiredsnt are probably the same idiots who voted for Obama and now have buyer’s remorse. These people are too dumb, stupid and lazy to do any real research to fond out who a candidate really is. All the information was available on Obama, his voting record, his close associates (terrorists and racists), his activist work, etc. These people define the term useful idiots .
omanuel | April 8, 2012 at 3:29 am |

Thank you, Steve Milloy, for this site, for your efforts to restore integrity to science and respect for the dignity and rights of individuals.

I was indeed slow to recognize that these are tightly tied together!

Along the way, one of your endorsers – the late Dr. Philip Abelson – intervened on my behalf in 1976 by publishing our first encounter with the lock-step, post-modern, consensus science dogma: The 1967 Bilderberg model of the Sun !

“Strange xenon, extinct superheavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195, 208-210 (1977): http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf

The rest of the story is here: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/
Mike Sarkisian | June 18, 2012 at 7:19 am |

Not really a reply but a question! If the seas are rising, how much may be atributed from ground water being pumped out at a rate far greater than is being replaced!
simplysciencenews | September 5, 2012 at 2:03 pm |

Love this blog, I hate when people come up with crazy claims and refuse to let science prove them wrong !!
Steve Milloy | September 10, 2012 at 9:49 am |

Thank you in advance for your patience.
Tony Jerina | September 20, 2012 at 9:07 am |

Steve Milloy wrote:
“P.S. If you can’t find the time or interest to check out EPAHumanTesting.com, please save yourself the trouble of ever visiting JunkScience.com again”

Do you really mean that?
- Steve Milloy | September 21, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
  
  That is something in writing that can be believed.
JamesMadison | October 30, 2012 at 2:29 pm |

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/27/gop-rigging-elections-for-romney/

What about that? the constant “statistical impossibility” sets off red flags.