You are here: Home / Archives for Steve Milloy

The Hypocrisy Of Greenpeace

May 10, 2012 by 1 Comment

Greenpeace launched an effort today to spotlight sea life casualties from the 2010 Gulf oil spill.

Below is the image of a dead turtle currently being exploited by Greenpeace (click to enlarge).

The Hypocrisy Of Greenpeace

But contrast the poor turtle with the poor eagle (below) whacked out of the sky by a wind turbine (click to enlarge).

The Hypocrisy Of Greenpeace

Below is how wind turbine supporter Greenpeace rationalizes the bird death in its pro-wind energy FAQ (click to enlarge).

The Hypocrisy Of Greenpeace

So Greenpeace’s attitude is, “So turbines kills few birds; it’s no big deal.”

We could (and will) just as blithely say, “So the oil spill killed some sealife, what of it?”

We need the energy (all forms) — even though some wildlife suffer. That’s life on the big blue marble.

Photo credit: HowardLake (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With:

Journal Editor Falsely Reports EPA Human Experiment, Rejects Request To Retract Report

May 9, 2012 by Leave a Comment
The whitewash of the EPA’s unethical, if not illegal, human experiments has gone interagency.

After Steve Milloy broke the news of EPA’s unethical-to-illegal human experiments in a Washington Times commentary, Milloy wrote on April 25, 2012 to Hugh Tilson, editor of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives(EHP), requesting retraction of the EHP-published case report of the experiment, asserting that the published case report was false and/or misleading:

Dr. Tilson,

I am requesting that EHP take corrective action concerning the study “Case Report: Supraventricular Arrhythmia after Exposure to Concentrated Ambient Air Pollution Particles,” (“Case Report”) published online September 6, 2011.

Based information obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request made to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the article omits material information about circumstances relevant to the Case Report. This omission materially affects the Case Report’s discussion and conclusions.

The case study, which is presented as evidence that fine particulate matter PM2.5 is a health risk, is not simply a lone “case study.” The researchers in question, in fact, conducted 40 other experiments similar to the Case Report.

But Case Report contains no mention of these 40 other experiments — the results of which all contradict the conclusions drawn by the case study’s authors.

“Case Report” should be retracted from publication and EHP should commence an investigation of the authors’ ethical conduct with respect to the Case Report.

There is also an additional ethical concern with the Case Report — i.e., that the experiment involved exposing the study subject, who had a history of heart disease, to a potentially lethal level of PM2.5. It is EPA’s position, after all, that PM2.5 doesn’t make one sick; it simply kills.

For more on the researcher’s failure to protect a human subject and the nature of the “lethality” of PM2.5, please read this article published in the Washington Times.

I am attaching for you the FOIA response from the EPA concerning the case study.

I look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

Steve Milloy
Publisher, JunkScience.com

Copies of the e-mail were also sent to the members of EHP‘s editorial board, one of whom mistakenly responded to Milloy instead of of Tilson. Obviously grasping the seriousness of the central accusation, Dr. Ken Korach, chief of the Laboratory of Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology at the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, wrote:

holy cow – you didn’t need this ? what do you want us to do for you ? – have you contacted the author about this claims ?

(Click image to enlarge)

Journal editor Falsely Reports EPA Human Experiment, rejects request to retract report

Eight days after Milloy’s April 25 letter, Tilson responded as follows [Note: Milloy's responses to Tilson's comments are in bolded brackets]:

3 May 2012

Mr. Steve Milloy
Publisher. JunkScience

Dear Mr. Milloy:

Thank you for your email of 26 April 2012 concerning the paper by Andrew Ghio et al (Ghio AJ, Bassett N, Montilla T. Chung EI-I, Smith CB, Cascio WE. 2012. Case report: Supraventricular arrhythmia after exposure to concentrated ambient air pollution particles. Environ Health Perspect 120:275-277). We have examined our records and I am reporting our findings in this letter. [My request was submitted on April 25 and Tilson investigated the matter and responded to me in about nine days -- this must be some sort of record time for government action. Of course, based on the content of Tilson's response, I am certain that no meaningful investigation of my allegations occurred.]

The observation reported in the Ghio aet al [sic] paper was derived from a larger study conducted at the Human Studies Facility of the National Health and Environmental Research Laboratory of the US Environmental Protection Agency. [Unfortunately for Tilson's response, it is precisely this disclosure — that there were 40 other human subjects studied by Ghio et al as part of this testing — that was omitted from the Ghio et al case report.] That study was an intentional environmental exposure study (lSEE), which involves controlled exposures under rigorous experimental conditions. [Yes, Ghio et al intentionally exposed 41 humans to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) that, according to EPA, could have killed them within hours of exposure.] Informed consent was obtained from the participants prior to the onset of the study. The ISEE was approved by the University of North Carolina School of Medicine Committee on the Protection of the Rights of Human Subjects. [We have yet to see what "informed consent" means in this case. Did the study subjects actually agree to be exposed to potentially-lethal PM2.5? Regardless of whether they read, understood and signed the consent forms, is such consent valid? That is, can the EPA actually ask study subjects to risk their lives in the name of air quality experimentation?]

The purpose of the ISEE study was not to elicit supraventricular arrhythmias by exposure to concentrated ambient air pollutant particles. [The purpose of the experiment was to see what happened to humans when exposed to very high levels of fine particulate matter. The researchers may not have expected to see a supraventricular arrhythmia, but that is no defense to the accusation that they experimented on people with a potentially lethal substance to see what would happen to them. Such experimentation is per se unethical if not illegal.] The observation described in the Ghio el al paper was an unintentional side effect in a single participant enrolled in the ISEE. [This is an interesting sentence. First, Tilson admits the ISEE (i.e., all 41 human study subjects) was one experiment. This bolsters my point that reporting only the case study while omitting any mention of the other 40 results is false and/or misleading. Next, Tilson claims the supra ventricular arrhythmia was an "unintentional side effect" even though the researchers were purposefully testing for human response to the PM2.5exposures.] Reporting the effect as a case report was appropriate.[Yes, but in the context of the entire experiment, including the 40 study subjects who experienced no "unintentional side effects." As a standalone experimental result, the case report is false and misleading.] Finally, the Ghio et al paper underwent rigorous peer review before being accepted for publication.

In summary, Ghio et al observed a side effect during the course of a larger planned study and reported the side effect as a case report.[This is another admission that the 41 study subjects were all part of the same experiment.] The larger study had been approved by the university committee for the protection of the rights of human subjects and the participant described in the case report had provided informed consent prior to the onset of the study. [Did the North Carolina University School of Medicine human studies review committee know that the EPA was planning on testing potentially lethal PM2.5 on humans? I bet not.] Based on our findings, we see no reason for corrective action. [Tilson found nothing because no bona fide investigation was conducted.]

Again, thank you for raising this issue. If you would like to raise other scientific or ethics questions about the Ghio et al paper, EHP suggests that you write a letter to the editor. Note that Ghio et al will be given the opportunity to respond. As indicated in our Instructions to Authors (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/static/instructions.action), a letter that is highly polemic or personal in nature will not be published. Correspondence is not peer reviewed and is published at the discretion of the EHP editors. Correspondence is limited to 750 words or less. [Tilson had his opportunity to do the right thing, but he instead opted to cover-up. While we will certainly write a follow-up letter, it won't be for publication in EHP.]

Regards

Hugh A. Tilson
Editor-in-Chief
Environmental Health Perspectives

Our investigation continues. Stay tuned.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With:

EPA Denies Conducting Unethical Human Experiments; Facts Show Otherwise

May 4, 2012 by 4 Comments
EPABusted e1329234248152 EPA denies conducting unethical human experiments; Facts show otherwise

 

Wayne Cascio, director of EPA’s Environmental Public Health Division, responds to Steve Milloy’s Washington Times commentary accusing EPA of conducting unethical human experiments or, in the alternative, exaggerating the dangers of airborne fine particulate matter.

Cascio’s letter is below. Milloy’s comments are in bolded brackets. We have been busy on this issue since the Washington Times commentary was published and will have much more to say soon.

###

Air-pollution studies important for health
May 1, 2012, The Washington Times

Steve Milloy’s recent Op-Ed (“Did Obama’s EPA relaunch Tuskegee experiments?” Commentary, April 25) makes allegations about critical scientific research into how air pollution might contribute to abnormal heart rhythms. [I accused EPA of either: (1) conducting unethical human experimentation or exaggerating the dangers of fine airborne particulate matter (PM2.5). It must be one or the other; it can't be neither, according to EPA's own documents.]

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) research into the health impacts of air pollution has helped to build healthier communities, provide new technology and develop new solutions to protect and manage air quality. [This is irrelevant propaganda.] In the case of research into fine-particle pollution, more than 50 clinical studies over the past decade involving human volunteers have been published by scientists from the EPA, many U.S. universities and medical centers. These describe cardiac effects in humans exposed to this harmful pollution. [So EPA admits to exposing humans to "harmful pollution." This is per se unethical human research as there is no individual or societal benefit from exposing humans to known harm (more on the "known" part, below). Also, it appears that the levels of PM2.5 that EPA exposed the study subjects to (as high as 21 times the EPA 24-hour standard of 35 micrograms/cubic meter) are the highest levels humans have ever been exposed to in an experimental setting.]

The EPA follows the Common Rule, which requires the ethical review and oversight of human research by an independent institutional review board (IRB) to ensure that any risks to study volunteers are minimized and justified. The EPA follows strict human safety protocols for all of its studies and these protocols are reviewed and approved by the IRB before any human study is conducted. Precautions are taken throughout the volunteer’s participation to ensure his safety. In the case of the EPA’s research on particle pollution, scientists studied biological changes that carry no or minimal risk while providing evidence for the reasons that particle pollution can lead to serious health problems. [The EPA clearly states in its most recent scientific document on PM2.5 that short-term exposure (i.e., hours or days) to PM2.5 can cause heart attack and/or death. As pointed out in the op-ed, Lisa Jackson's recent congressional testimony about PM2.5 is even more dire. There is no provision in either the Common Ruleor EPA's other ethical requirements and guidance that permits the intentional exposure of human subjects to the risk of heart attack and/or death. In fact, the purpose of the Common Rule et al. is to prevent such experimentation. Moreover, it is not at all clear that EPA informed the study subjects that the experiments could cause heart attack or death. Finally, EPA's IRB did not review these experiments before they occurred, in violation of EPA's own rules.]

The EPA has established health-based standards for fine-particulate matter, and these protect the public from serious health problems, including aggravated asthma, increased hospital admissions, heart attacks and premature death.[More irrelevant propaganda.] Individuals particularly sensitive to fine-particle exposure include people with heart or lung disease, older adults and children. [The lone case report published by EPA scientists involved a 58-year old woman with heart problems and a family history of heart disease (her father died at age 57). Experimenting on this study subject is unethical2.]

In the United States, a heart attack occurs every 34 seconds and more than 2,200 people die of cardiovascular disease each day. It is estimated that tens of thousands of premature deaths and nonfatal heart attacks are triggered by air pollution, and this emphasizes the importance of research in this field. The health scientists and staff at the EPA are privileged to provide safe, ethical, unbiased and state-of-the-art inhalation science in support of the Clean Air Act as we work to define and understand the risks of air pollution to the American people. [Yet more irrelevant propaganda.]

WAYNE E. CASCIO

Director

Environmental Public Health Division

Environmental Protection Agency

Greenville, N.C.

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With:

Bush EPA Administrator On Obama Green Energy Welfare?

January 4, 2012 by 1 Comment
jacksonjohnson Bush EPA Administrator On Obama Green Energy Welfare?

Obama's EPA Administrator Jackson & Bush's EPA Administrator Johnson

Not surprisingly, he says nice things about the Obama EPA.

Politico reports,

Stephen Johnson is one of a handful of people who know first-hand what EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is dealing with.

So the George W. Bush-era EPA chief does not want to criticize his successor.

“I made a conscious decision not to be the armchair critic of the current administrator or administration — that the administrator’s job and the responsibility that’s been placed upon EPA by the laws are challenging enough,” Johnson said in a recent interview with POLITICO, after several years of shying away from the press.

“Does that mean I agree with every decision that the current administrator made? No, not at all,” he said. “Do I believe that they’re trying to advance health and environmental protection? I certainly do.”

So is he just being polite and/or naive?

Politico goes on to report:

Johnson is also on the board of Scotts Miracle-Gro and a wastewater treatment renewable energy company. And he’s a consulting board member of FlexEnergy, a renewable energy company that has created a turbine that captures and converts methane — a greenhouse gas — into energy.

Johnson said his new position at FlexEnergy meets his “interest in technology and advancing environmental and public health protection of addressing potent greenhouse gases,” in an “economically sustainable” and “prosperous way.”

In November, FlexEnergy launched a 250 kilowatt installation — enough to power 250 homes — at Fort Benning, Ga., as part of an Obama administration Defense Department pilot program. Using landfill gas, the base is now powered with near-zero emissions.

Demonstrating Johnson’s all-inclusive style of environmental policy, Mike Levin, FlexEnergy’s director of government affairs, noted that the technology offers “something for everybody to agree on”… [Emphasis added]

At the very least, Flex Energy is surfing the climate scare that Johnson not only failed to quell while EPA chief, but ultimately resulted in the Obama EPA’s greenhouse gas regulatory authority.

Read More and Comment: Bush EPA Administrator On Obama Green Energy Welfare?

Filed Under: Commentary Tagged With:

EPA: Lisa Jackson Makes A Power Play

December 27, 2011 by 1 Comment
EPA mercury toxics standards EPA: Lisa Jackson Makes A Power Play

EPA seizes more control of our energy supply by using bogus statistics.

“The rest of the purported benefits—to be precise, 99.99%—come by double-counting pollution reductions like soot that the EPA regulates through separate programs and therefore most will happen anyway. Using such “co-benefits” is an abuse of the cost-benefit process and shows that Cass Sunstein’s team at the White House regulatory office—many of whom opposed the rule—got steamrolled.”

The Wall Street Journal editorializes,

At an unusual gala ceremony on the release of a major new Environmental Protection Agency rule yesterday, chief Lisa Jackson called it “historic” and “a great victory.” And she’s right: The rule may be the most expensive the agency has ever issued, and it represents the triumph of the Obama Administration’s green agenda over economic growth and job creation. Congratulations.

The so-called utility rule requires power plants to install “maximum achievable control technology” to reduce mercury emissions and other trace gases. But the true goal of the rule’s 1,117 pages is to harm coal-fired power plants and force large parts of the fleet—the U.S. power system workhorse—to shut down in the name of climate change. The EPA figures the rule will cost $9.6 billion, which is a gross, deliberate underestimate.

In return Ms. Jackson says the public will get billions of dollars of health benefits like less asthma if not a cure for cancer. Those credulous enough to believe her should understand that the total benefits of mercury reduction amount to all of $6 million. That’s total present value, not benefits per year—oh, and that’s an -illion with an “m,” which is not normally how things work out in President Obama’s Washington.

The rest of the purported benefits—to be precise, 99.99%—come by double-counting pollution reductions like soot that the EPA regulates through separate programs and therefore most will happen anyway. Using such “co-benefits” is an abuse of the cost-benefit process and shows that Cass Sunstein’s team at the White House regulatory office—many of whom opposed the rule—got steamrolled.

As baseload coal power is retired or idled, the reliability of the electrical grid will be compromised, as every neutral analyst expects. Some utilities like Calpine Corp. and PSEG have claimed in these pages that the reliability concerns are overblown, but the Alfred E. Newman crowd has a vested interest in profiting from the higher wholesale electricity clearing prices that the EPA wants to cause.

Meanwhile, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is charged with protecting reliability, abnegated its statutory responsibilities as the rule was being written.

One FERC economist wrote in a March email that “I don’t think there is any value in continuing to engage EPA on the issues. EPA has indicated that these are their assumptions and have made it clear that are not changed [sic] anything on reliability . . . [EPA] does not directly answer anything associated with local reliability.” The EPA repeatedly told Congress that it had “very frequent substantive contact and consultation with FERC.”

The EPA also took the extraordinary step of issuing a pre-emptive “enforcement memorandum,” which is typically issued only after the EPA determines its rules are being broken. The memo tells utilities that they must admit to violating clean air laws if they can’t retrofit their plants within the EPA’s timeframe at any cost or if shutting down a plant will lead to regional blackouts. Such legal admissions force companies into a de facto EPA receivership and expose them to lawsuits and other liabilities.

The economic harm here is vast, and the utility rule saga—from the EPA’s reckless endangerment to the White House’s failure to temper Ms. Jackson—has been a disgrace.

We don’t think there’s even $6 million worth of benefits in the rule.

Read More and Comment: WSJ: Lisa Jackson Makes A Power Play
Filed Under: Commentary Tagged With:

Time To Leash Obama’s EPA

December 15, 2011 by Leave a Comment

 

viciousdog Time To Leash Obama’s EPA

The EPA needs to be leashed by Congress.

Will House Republicans squander an entire year of effort to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency?

Since the 112th Congress began, House Republicans have talked tough about EPA overregulation. They’ve held a multitude of hearings. They’ve passed a number of bills to rein in EPA regulatory excesses, from the TRAIN Act imposing cost-benefit analysis on the agency to the REINS Act requiring congressional approval of regulatory actions costing more than $100 million to votes blocking the EPA from overregulating coal-fired power plants, industrial boilers and farm dust.

They’ve even sliced a modest amount off the EPA’s operating budget.

But none of these measures have stopped or slowed down the eco-fundamentalist EPA from its campaign to destroy the fossil fuel industry and gain control over the entire American economy.

Sure, President Obama delayed the EPA from further tightening the ground-level ozone standard, but that was a result of pressure from a broad coalition of businesses, political advisers and the looming 2012 elections, not necessarily because of the House GOP.

So here we are in the last throes of the first session of the 112th Congress, and House Republicans have little to show except effort. As Winston Churchill said, “Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes you must do what is required.”

Fortunately, there is still time.

Among other legislation, Congress is looking to pass an appropriations bill this week, and then go home for the Christmas recess. A bill must pass, which means that Democrats must vote up or down on the bill, and

President Obama must sign or veto it. No passes allowed – unless House Republicans allow it.

The House GOP has three options: First, they could allow Democrats to get off scot-free by passing an appropriations bill that does nothing but reduce EPA’s funding. As the Obama EPA has shrugged off earlier budget cuts, there is no reason to give congressional Democrats a free pass.

Next, the House GOP could skirt the issue by doing what it has in the past to avoid a showdown with Democrats – pass a continuing resolution to fund the federal government for another month or so, thereby putting off the battle until the 2012 election year. Sometimes procrastination is good political strategy, but not when the American economy is withering on the vine.

Finally, the House could accomplish what it has worked hard to do all year: Take a firm stand to rein in the job-killing EPA.

Beyond hampering economic recovery and growth, the EPA is actually for the first time in history threatening electricity reliability – so much so that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency responsible for electricity transmission and reliability – is concerned about this.

What this means is next summer, when there’s a heat wave that requires the electric-utility industry to operate at peak capacity, there is a likelihood that Obama EPA actions to put coal-fired power plants out of business will reduce the availability of air conditioning.

Even the EPA recognizes on its website and in its literature that the No. 1 way to avoid death and sickness during a heat wave is air conditioning. That point was driven home during the 2003 heat wave in Europe, which killed more than 50,000 persons.

The point here is the House GOP has some pretty compelling political arguments for drawing a line in the sand on the EPA.

Aside from jobs and the economy, Senate Democrats like Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Robert P. Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia – all of whom are up for re-election in 2012 – might not want to roll the dice on whether there will be a killer heat wave next summer.

The fight to rein in the EPA now will be ugly. It may run into Christmas. The left-wing media, green groups, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Mr. Obama will falsely attack Republicans as picking polluters over asthmatic children. Their New York Times poll ratings will fall.

Nevertheless, House GOP members were elected to a huge majority in 2010 in order to take such difficult stands.

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

 

Read More and Comment: Time To Leash Obama’s EPA

Filed Under: Commentary Tagged With: , , ,

Junk Science War: Fracking Quakes And ‘Dirty Faces’

November 18, 2011 by 1 Comment

Water and Fracking Dont Mix 300x203 Junk Science War: Fracking Quakes and ‘Dirty Faces’

Here's an example of the junk science that is going to be used against hydraulic fracking.

Though I write to defend the natural gas industry from the junk science hurled at it and the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing (fracking), I do so with mixed emotions.

Two recent government reports, one from the United Kingdom and the other from Oklahoma, have tried to draw a connection between fracking and seismic activity occurring in those areas. In the UK, the seismic activity registered 3 on the Richter scale (vibrations similar to a passing truck). In Oklahoma, the activity registered between 1.0 and 2.8. Neither report could attribute with any certainty the seismic activity to the local fracking, as that would be nearly impossible to do given the multifactorial nature of seismic activity.

So: of the more than one million fracking or fracking-like operations that have occurred, unattributable seismic activity has been detected twice. Moreover, no structural damage was attributed to any of the seismic activity. Scientifically and from a risk management perspective, fracking should be off the hook. But of course it’s not, because radical environmentalists loathe fracking — cheap natural gas means that the world won’t be giving up fossil fuels anytime soon — and so they have their long knives out for it. You can safely bet that anytime seismic activity coincides with fracking activity, they will use that coincidence to whip up fear.

And if it’s not earthquakes, it will be fracking fluids in drinking water. Or fracking’s greenhouse gas emissions. Or whatever can be dreamed up to scare people about the expanding industry of extracting natural gas from shale formations.

As we’ve learned with other environmental scaremongering, there are countless junk science-based ways to scare the public, and you can rest assured the radicals will dream them up and employ them to great effect. What this means is that the shale gas industry will be under continual attack, and that the attacks won’t stop until fracking does.

However, while I’m more than happy to spotlight and debunk the enviros’ use of junk science, I’m also more than a little annoyed at the junk science that the shale gas industry itself is apparently quite happy to use against its brethren fossil fuels.

If you’ve followed the 21st century environmentalist war against fossil fuel, you’ve probably heard of the “Dirty Faces” anti-coal campaign: advertisements featuring coal-smudged faces, proclaiming that coal is “dirty” because its emits greenhouse gas carbon dioxide — ironically, a colorless and odorless gas.

The Dirty Faces campaign was unapologetically sponsored by shale gas company Chesapeake Energy. CEO Aubrey McClendon figured that he would do his part to help drive the coal industry out of business to drive up demand for natural gas, the current glut of which was caused by the technology breakthrough of fracking. Though cap-and-trade died in the last Congress, McClendon and Chesapeake are back to their anti-coal campaign, this time waging a proxy war through the American Lung Association.

The Obama administration is waging an all-out war against the coal industry though the EPA, the Department of the Interior, and the Mine Safety Administration. The EPA has enlisted paid allies like the American Lung Association to attack the coal industry and politicians that support it. According to the American Lung Association’s 2010 report, Chesapeake Energy provided the funds that allowed the American Lung Association to create a new public service campaign (called “Fighting for Air”). It includes junk science-based fearmongering about premature deaths, asthma, and other heart and lung effects allegedly caused by ambient air quality. The Lung Association uses the campaign to help defend the EPA’s war against coal.

So while Chesapeake fights environmentalist junk science on fracking, it actually funds junk science to use against its rivals. To some people this may make business sense, but it’s shortsighted.

Helping the EPA defeat coal will win the gas industry no brownie points. That’s not how the all-powerful and unaccountable EPA needs to operate. Plus, Chesapeake is aiding and abetting enviro-radicals who, as soon as they have finished off the coal industry, will set their sights on shale gas. Divide-and-conquer is one of their bread-and-butter techniques.

Knowing that the junk science war against fracking has just begun, it’s more than frustrating to know that the frackers are willing to do the same to another innocent party. Chesapeake’s problem is not the coal industry. Its problem is the radical environmentalists who are purposefully blocking U.S. economic recovery and growth in part through their war against fossil fuel production. A growing economy would actually require more energy, including gas, and gas prices would rise as demand increased.

We need to develop all forms of energy: coal, gas, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, whatever. Energy is not the zero-sum game — swap coal for gas — that McClendon seems to think it is. And paying the enemy to employ junk science is not the right way to gain friends and influence people.

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

Read More and Comment: Junk Science War: Fracking Quakes and ‘Dirty Faces’

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,