Talk:Steven Milloy

The science that Mr. Milloy disputes

Allegations aside, the science that Mr. Milloy disputes is open to a certain and fair amount of debate.

No, most are not.jgwlaw 14:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Milloy is a careful documenter of politicized science and other bad science. This article is an anti-Milloy hit-piece. I've added a "neutrality disputed" warning. NCdave 08:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Straightforward categorizing of his views and evidence as being 'baseless' shows a bit of POV. This article could use less POV by including a section on what Mr. Milloy calls junk science rather than opening the page on him with a section called 'CRITICISM'. NPOV please... (--previous unsigned comment by 66.75.3.244)

Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see the word "baseless" in the article. Please point out the POV. --Viriditas 00:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry 66.75.3.244, but you don't appear to understand the NPOV policy. Please read it. --Viriditas 00:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one the entire biographical section on Mr. Milloy had been summed up as being 'evil tobbacco front' and 'scary industry insider.' So I added the section on his education quoted verbatim from his website. (--previous unsigned comment by 66.75.3.244)

Please sign your comments with three tildes. There's nothing wrong with adding information to the article. That is actively encouraged, so I thank you for doing that. We don't want to add anything "verbatim" however, as there are copyright policies in place and plagiarism is discouraged. I don't see the word "evil" or "scary" anywhere in the article. --Viriditas 00:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Better, please sign your comments with four tildes, so they get a timestamp. NCdave 08:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the only POV on the page had to do with external criticism of Mr. Milloy by enviromentalists and their front groups. The extent of those criticisms summed up Mr. Milloy's views as being 'baseless' which if you search Yahoo you can find is standard for the rebuttals of his claims. So I added the section that covered some of Mr. Milloy's junk science views which maintains the pages NPOV by balancing the arguments for and against. Best. (--previous unsigned comment by 66.75.3.244)

I disagree with what you claim about external criticism, however I encourage you to add information rather than deleting it, so thank you again for adding information about his views. --Viriditas 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I deleted a couple of redundencies and moved them to the opening paragraph (mostly about his affiliations). I added the background about his education and viewpoints and linked to examples. I think the only things I have actually 'deleted', rather than moved, were POV words such as 'attacked' and such where I changed these to say criticized. Best. (--previous unsigned comment by 66.75.3.244)

Cato Institute is not an environmental group, nor is Robert Todd Carroll's Skeptic's Dictionary. Milloy has been criticized by many different groups, so please don't describe them as "environmental groups" as they run the gamut. --Viriditas 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

This article is awful

The vast majority of this article consists of Ad hominem attacks against Milloy. Whilst this ia a rhetorical technique works against most people, it is logically fallicious - you cannot say that because he has links to organisations with vested interests in what he is saying, everything he says is therefore wrong with no further qualification - which is what this article (well... it looks more like an op-ed piece, but whatever) appears to be implying, and what people on this discussion page seem to be saying ought to be the case..

In addition, this paragraph is particularly objectionable:

"Milloy has been one of the most prominent popularizers of the idea that scientific research suggesting that corporate activities may damage health or the environment is junk science, which should be replaced by sound science. These terms are used primarily by corporate special-interests and have no definition within the scientific community."

I despise Milloy, but I have to agree that this paragraph needs to be rewritten or moved to the criticism section. This section should describe junk science (Milloy has provided his own definition if a suitable one can't be found within the "scientific community"), not condemn usage of the term. --Garrepi 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While "Junk science" may not be a technical term, scientists do, in fact, have a concept of science that is wrong, or that is inconclusive. No effort appears to have been made in the creation of this article to present his views with any semblence of balance, but simply to smear his character and attack nit-picks in his massive site and body of work.

I have read this article, his site and various articles attacking him, and I have to say that this article is not in any way befitting of an encyclopedia (although in all fairness, I have noticed this appears to be an endemic problem in wikipedia in politics-related articles; I have no idea why). It ought to be editted by someone, preferably neutral in the global warming debate, who is not attempting to come across as a rabid envrionmentalist. 88.105.242.190 12:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Global warming is beyond dispute. No reptuable scientist disuputes it. In fact, that global warming is caused by humans is also not in dispute

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling." (Washington Post)

IN contrast, Rush Limbaugh stated that he read somewhere that the earth's temperature had actually dropped in the last couple of years. Don't know where he would have read that, since 2005 was the hottest year on record (as far as the earth' temperature). This is an example of what real 'junk' the notion of 'exposing junk science' often is. jgwlaw 14:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Global warming is far from beyond dispute. I have read many articles arguing the theory and even the top climatologist Stephen Schneider says, "Is there global warming? I'm not 99% sure, but I am 90% sure." The fact is, from the POV of the skeptics, much of the data gathered about global warming is insufficient or suspect. This article needs less ad hominem attacks and more unbiased critical analysis of his writings. That's what I came here for, not this nonsense. 202.61.229.85

Yes, scientists do have a concept of science that is "wrong", but junk science is used almost exclusivly by corporate interests to disparage scientific findings at odds with corporate needs. Furthermore, the labeling of something as "Junk Science" seems to have little to do with its scientific merit. Thus Global Warming, which is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community is called "Junk", while no such label is attached to Creationism or Intelligent Design. This is because Creationism does not pose any immediate threat to profits. (In fact, one of Milloy's sites had an anti-evolution article on it).

Also, while it is true that recieving thousands of dollers from interested parties does not mean everything he says is wrong. However, the fact that he has recieved so much money from corporations, and then did not mention this in his writings or commentary does make his statements suspect at best. Ace-o-aces 15:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He is not a scientist. He is not an academic. He is a political columnist and paid pundit. This is not a biased article, and I am removing the tag.jgwlaw 14:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The comment by 88.105.242.190 misunderstands the notion of "ad hominem", which concerns criticism of an argument, not of a person. Also NPOV does not mean the same thing as 88.105.242.190 appears to understand from "neutrality" - Global warming is today's featured article and presents the view of the scientific community, while noting the existence of dissent. You might improve the article by reporting endorsements of Milloy's work by scientists or by mentioning positive things he's done JQ 04:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You ought to read your own writing. Your entire response is a hodge-podge of Ad hominem attacks and appeal to motive attacks. Regardless of his motives, if you believe that his analysis of the evidence for global warming is incorrect then you must attack 1) his evidence and/or 2) his analysis. You have done neither, yet you have no qualms with simply declaring it is wrong because of evil big business and <fallacies>. Global warming is most certainly not a theory without contention in the scientific community, whereas intelligent design and creationism have no supporters in the scientific community to my knowledge. In fact, numerous scientists have openly criticises the "consensus" on global warming:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wkyoto09.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=3612471

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0605/S00001.htm

The "scientific community" does not exist as a single homogenous collection of views.

At best you could say that global warming is 'likely', but it remains to be seen how much of the historically unspectacular 0.6deg rise can be attributed to human activity, yet hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on measures to combat global warming that will be completely ineffective even if 100% of it is due to human causes. This appeals to be the crux of Milloy's point, as far as I have read, and I am yet to be shown why it is invalid.

This is absolutely untrue. Global warming is not 'likely'. It is a proven fact. See below. You have not evidently read the many many scientific articles on this issue.jgwlaw 14:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whilst it is true that Milloy's links to business should be included in the article, they should not be framed in such a way as to suggest to an average reader that they invalidate all of his views without the need to do anything so quaint as scientifically examine his arguments. 88.105.244.99 16:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to repost the entire Global Warming article here. That article already mentions arguments against global warming by some scientists. Milloy is not a scientist. He is a paid PR rep. He is paid to represent the views of his clients. Ace-o-aces 01:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Well one point is clear, Milloy has lots of opponents ... seems someone mentioned the world was round in a flatland beehive. Last time I checked, popularity was not part of the scientific method.Tanuki-Dori

Popularity is not part of the scientific method, but integrity is. Milloy has lots of opponents because he disrespects and attacks the scientific method to advance harmful agendas in return for a tidy profit. He's the flat-earther in your analogy. MastCell 23:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, integrity is a social instrument, like popularity. Tanuki-Dori 23:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand... corrected???? MastCell 06:25, 23 September 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)

POV

this article is one long string of bile and ad hominem abuse. Milloy points out many examples of junk science, where the science really is junk. This is transformed into him being a paid hack who only looks out for paid corporate interests. There are numerous errors, e.g.

"the CDC could not link any cancer clusters with environmental causes"

this is then labelled as a falsehood, by giving examples of cancer obtained through occupational exposure. Most epidemiologists make a distinction between occupational and environmental, and I don't see the need for such high octane languange under any circumstances. Peroxisome 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Over at John Brignell you say associating JB with Milloy is a smear. Now you're defending him. Do you deny that he's a paid hack? Can you point to any instance where his writing damages the corporate interests who pay him? The evidence on this was clear enough for Cato to sack him. JQ 22:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I dare say you are paid, and you probably don't damage your employer's interests much. Does that make you a paid hack, and does that justify any poisonous bile anyone puts on your page ?

As I understand, WP:V is an important issue. How about you provide some evidence that his writing makes a material difference to corporate interests that pay him, instead of speculating ? How about you provide some evidence that his writing on junk science is motivated by payments, instead of speculating ? If you have something to say about sacking, and it meets WP:v and is relevant, how about you put it up ?Peroxisome 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Milloy seems to be exploiting a relatively arbitrary distinction between environmental and occupational exposure, but having checked out the CDC's website it does support a literal reading of his statement. I'll go ahead and remove the offending paragraph you cited. Can you cite other examples of POV (or even better, propose corrections?) I do think your analogy is a little ridiculous. If I'm paid to report on "science" for a supposedly reputable news organization, and I then take beaucoup $$$ and coincidentally disparage any science that harms my benefactors, I've committed a fairly giant breach of journalistic ethics (or paid hackery, if you like). Even Fox News admitted as much, for God's sake. This fact, as well as the fact that Milloy has repeatedly profited handsomely by being on the wrong side of public health issues (and spreading as much FUD as possible) are all relevant to the article, and will result in an overall negative tone; however, if you cite other areas which violate WP:NPOV, let's try to fix them. MastCell 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

dear mast cell, thanks for your comment. If you have something specific to cite about milloy breaching journalistic ethics that meets WP:V, please reference. As is, there seem to be an awful lot of innuendo, and very little substance. I don't see anything that supports the contention "has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments from the Phillip Morris company"; for such a specific, and potentially defamatory claim, I would expect to see exact citation. I also cannot find the factual basis for the first sentence; even if Milloy did work for an organisation that received funds from a tobacco company, that does not necessarily make him a paid advocate for that company. Does prwatch.com qualify as a reliable source ? Looking at WP:V, it looks perilously close to being a "Sources of dubious reliability".

the junk science page defines as follows

""Junk science" is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas."[[3]] Why not set out what that says before launching into a POV paraphrase ? Peroxisome 00:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, don't push it too far. The citation for the claims about "hundreds of thousands of dollars" is The New Republic article. It's plastered all over the article. It meets WP:RS and WP:V. As far as journalistic ethics, again, it's there in black and white. Fox News confirmed it. This article is actually fairly well-sourced, and there's plenty of substance there. MastCell 05:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

ok; if it is footnote 2, can you please add a link to that footnote from paragraph 3 ? If sentence 1 justifies the paid advocate bit by reference to footnote 2 (and not footnote 1), change the reference. The footnote should point out that a subscription is required. It is unfortunate the subscription is required to ref 2, because I cannot evaluate the claim. I do not see anything in reference 1 which substantiates a claim of direct payment to SM by phillip morris, nor that he was paid to be an advocate for them- can you help me with this ? The statements about reference 2 also appear inconsistent; if sm is a paid advocate for exxon mobil, that is very different from the formulation of para 3 that organisation sm is associated with have received payment from exxon mobile.

Does PRwatch.com meet wp:rs ? It looks to have problems under "Company and organization websites", and the article author is the CEO of the organisation, so it is close to self-publication. Peroxisome 08:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at footnote 2 on google cache. Several of the statements made on the main page are not supported by reference 2; it does not say he is a paid advocate; it does not say he was paid hundreds of thousands of $ from PM. Peroxisome 09:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you appear to have learned from The Master (Milloy) himself. OK, here are direct quotes from ref 2:

According to Lisa Gonzalez, manager of external communications for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, Milloy was under contract there through the end of last year. “In 2000 and 2001, some of the work he did was to monitor studies, and then we would distribute this information within to our different companies,” Gonzalez said. Although she couldn’t comment on fees paid to Milloy, a January 2001 Philip Morris budget report lists Milloy as a consultant and shows that he was budgeted for $92,500 in fees and expenses in both 2000 and 2001. [emphasis added]

Here's more from the same reference:

Milloy’s relationship to big tobacco goes back at least to March 1997, when he took over as executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a front group established in 1993 by Philip Morris and p.r. firm APCO Associates "to expand and assist Philip Morris in its efforts with issues in targeted states"...A 1997 Philip Morris budget report includes a line item granting TASSC $200,000. As executive director, Milloy also reached out to other allies within the industry. For instance, in September 1997, he sent a letter to Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation soliciting $50,000: “The grant will be used to further TASSC’s efforts to educate the public, media and policymakers on priorities in public health,” he wrote.

This is not from PRWatch; it's from TNR, which meets WP:V and WP:RS. Ergo, paid advocate. Ergo, hundreds of thousands of dollars (if you prefer "more than $100,000" we could change it to that). Anything else? MastCell 23:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

there are numerous issues here. If the source is TNR, then that is the source which should be cited. Are you accepting that PRWatch looks to be a dubious source ?

I understand that there is a difference between paying someone (a fee), and reimbursing expenses. I don't see that there is necessarily any obligation imposed if someone reimburses reasonable expenses to you; whereas there might be if they make a payment to you. I see that there is a world of difference between a company budgeting for an expense, and actually paying that expense; if a budgeted item is not paid in one year, you can move the budget item into the next financial year. The cited reference does not state that he was paid hundreds of thousands, nor does it show for what purpose he was paid.

What the reference says is that Milloy's company/organisation was paid to "educate the public, media and policymakers on priorities in public health”; specifically, this does not say that Milloy was directly paid by philip morris or exxon, nor does it say he was paid to be an advocate for PM or exxon. Peroxisome 00:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I note that milloy is alive, and so this article must adhere to WP:LIVING.

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.[2] Peroxisome 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Give it a break, per, this is just silly. The TNR article sets out the facts quite clearly, and euphemisms like "educate the public" don't fool anybody. There's loads of well-sourced criticism of Milloy over his paid advocacy (just Google Milloy+TASSC), and the article can easily be expanded to include more if that's what you want. Also, read the section on Rall - even Brignell found that one a bit hard to stomach. Do you really want to waste your time on this guy? JQ 02:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of argument that gives pedantic sophistry a bad name. First of all, I'm not saying PRWatch is dubious (it's not); you expressed some concerns about verifiability; I took these to be in good faith, so I'm providing a second, corroborating source to support the statements in the article. You're making a non-existent distinction between paying someone and "reimbursing expenses". What "expenses" did Milloy spend $90,000 a year on? Staples? You're really arguing that accepting $90,000 a year from a tobacco company doesn't reflect a service rendered? There's a paper trail a mile long here. Finally, please stop throwing policies around left and right. This article DOES adhere to WP:LIVING. The TNR article was published; no relevant corrections were made; Fox News indirectly confirmed its allegations. If you'd prefer, there are several articles on Milloy in The Guardian, a U.K. paper published in a country with even stricter libel laws, which corroborate the info in TNR (and this article) and then some. I appreciated your first comment about the cancer clusters, and acted on it. If you'd prefer different wording, then propose it here and let's discuss it. MastCell 02:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

my understanding is that this is an encyclopedia, and that you have to provide verifiable sources for statements of fact. You must adhere to wp:LIVING. It is not acceptable to misrepresent the reference you have, on the grounds that there is another reference somewhere else, which you haven't cited.

1. just because a company budgeted for something, does not mean that they spent the money. The journalist thacker made this statement quite carefully. Reimbursement of expenses is not payment, and is not payment for advocacy. Even if milloy was paid, it doesn't show he was paid for advocacy.

2. According to Thacker, Altria say that he worked on monitoring studies. This is not paid advocacy, and there is no mention of the amount of money.

3. Payment to a company run by Milloy is different from a payment to Milloy. According to the Thacker article, TASSC was funded for a specific purpose, and it was not advocacy for PM or exxon.

4. I think that PRwatch is a dubious source under WP:living; it is clearly partisan, it makes statements that are unreferenced and unverifiable, and it is a special interest group with inadequate standards of editorial supervision publishing on their own website. Under any circumstances, it does not justify the claim "a paid advocate for Phillip Morris".

5. This is an encyclopedia; the reliable source (Thacker) made clear that TASSC was funded to "educate the public", as you put it. Changing who was paid, and what they were paid for, is to contradict the facts that you have available.

6. If there is a story about journalistic ethics and Milloy and Fox, I cannot work out what it is. It is not clearly spelt out, and there are insufficient references to back up anything under any circumstances.

Peroxisome 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"If there is a story about journalistic ethics and Milloy and Fox, I cannot work out what it is." I don't think anyone else had any trouble working this out, including Cato who dumped him like a hot potato, even after tolerating the Rall business. JQ 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference: Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (look under "Act Independently"), or try Public Relations Society of America statement on disclosure of financial interests, since Milloy is more of a PR type than a journalist. However consider him, Milloy has violated the ethics codes of both PR and journalism - not my opinion, but a verifiable fact. MastCell 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

innuendo and spin is not the same as a clear statement of what the facts are. If cato, or fox, fired or dropped him for a reason, and you have a reference substantiating that clearly, provide the reference and make the statement of fact. If all you have is innuendo, then delete it. Peroxisome 13:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you have a better way to state the fact that Milloy was paid by Philip Morris to put forward their point of view, let's hear it. Or you could spend some time looking at the Philip Morris document archive. Milloy's name comes up a few times. The organization he ran, TASSC, was listed by Philip Morris as a "PM tool to affect legislative decisions" - see here. Since make accusations of misrepresenting sources, perhaps you should re-read the Thacker article - to say that Thacker "makes clear the TASSC was funded to educate the public" obscures the fact that Thacker's article is about the nefarious purposes for which TASSC was actually funded. MastCell 04:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made the point that the reference you cite does not justify your claims. You are not even arguing against that. Peroxisome 13:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you've repeatedly mispresented the Thacker article. Milloy was paid by Philip Morris. He advanced their agenda. Hence, paid advocate. This is spelled out in the Thacker article; hence the citation justifies the claim. There are parts of the article that could use a more neutral tone. However, you seem to be fixated on spinning things to a pro-Milloy POV that just isn't supported by the references given here. As I've said repeatedly, if you have a constructive suggestion, propose it here. If you feel we're being unreasonable, there are any number of dispute resolution tools available. MastCell 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have the article in front of me; it does not use the word advocate at all. I have addressed above the specific quotes you provided, and made clear that they do not justify the words that you have used. You obviously have a belief that he is "on the wrong side of public health", but that does not justify statements that are not supported by the reference. You must conform to WP:living. Peroxisome 19:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I see WMC has taken to reverting. I merely note that he is inserting material which confirms to his POV, and which is clearly partisan. The reference gives a specific definition of what the web-site is dedicated to. WMC's paraphrase is not supported by the reference. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, with attention to accuracy; it is not a place for excoriating your personal hate-icons :-) Peroxisome 20:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As a general point, Per, if you regard something as inadequately cited, it's best to add a cite or fact tag, and see if you get a response rather than immediately blanking material.

Again, the Thacker article does not use the word "advocate", but makes it clear that Milloy is exactly that. Paraphrasing the conclusions of an article is acceptable and in fact a cornerstone of what we do on Wikipedia; if you have a serious disagreement about what the article says, that's one thing. If your objection is that I use the word "advocate" and the article expresses the same idea with different words, then that seems a little silly. How about this: I'll change the first sentence from "paid advocate" to "paid consultant". Then we're using the exact same words. MastCell 20:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC) — — Addendum: After reviewing further tobacco company documents, which explicitly state that RJR Tobacco, for one, reviewed, revised, and edited Milloy's junkscience website content, I've decided that advocate is actually more appropriate. MastCell 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also added some information and citations regarding the secondhand-smoke issue. The citations are from the primary documents (Philip Morris memos, letters, etc), and are freely available. MastCell 21:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, in reference to Peroxisome's argument about payment to Milloy directly vs. payment to a company consisting of Milloy, I've mentioned I regard this as a specious argument. Nonetheless, if you'd like evidence the fact that Milloy himself was directly on Philip Morris' payroll, here is Philip Morris's 2001 budget for "Strategy and Social Responsibility" - note Milloy's name, next to $180,000 in payments over 2 years. The point is not so much PRWatch, or TNR, as individual sources, but the fact that what they say is backed up by multiple independent primary sources as well, creating a coherent picture of Milloy as a paid advocate for PM and others. Please re-read WP:RS on this, since you're fond of quoting it. MastCell 23:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these improvements to the article, MastCell, and thanks to Peroxisome for stimulating them. The more the article is challenged on weakly sourced points, the better it will become, and the better the documentation of Milloy's activities for readers who aren't already aware of them. JQ 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

err, the point is exactly about individual sources and what they say. What you are saying is that you are willfully ignoring the distinction between payments to Milloy, and payments to organisations that he is associated with- that the distinction is "specious". That is obviously perverse.

You have evidence of a budget for payments from PM; but there is nothing there to say what it is for, beyond "emerging issues". You may note that RJR have been in discussion with milloy, but you are lacking the elements of payment, and the notion of purpose (advocacy). I don't think you have provided anything which links exxon directly to payments to milloy, or for advocacy. Just because you have found the primary sources that Thacker used, does not give you licence to garble them together to make unjustifiable, and defamatory, statements.

I counsel you again; wp:living. I also counsel you that " Controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. " This is the warning on the top of the page. Peroxisome 09:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I will note as well that, despite the mutual appreciation from quiggin and mast, all you have done is go back to the primary literature that thacker indicated; and I hadn't complained that that article failed to meet WP:RS. I will note that there is a distinction between the approach of a professional journalist- who refers to the budget for fees to milloy- and yourself, who translates that into payments to milloy. This article remains full of ad hominem abuse, unverified claims, and POV. Peroxisome 11:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying it does not make it so. The sources adequately back the article's statements in the opinion of many people who have made their opinion known on this talk page. A quick read of the article and this talk page indicates to me that you are pushing a specific point of view that would make wikipedia a worse encyclopedia. Using our policies to make wikipedia worse is called gaming the system and is not allowed. WAS 4.250 18:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a voice of sanity. At first I assumed that Peroxisome was interested in making this article, which was already reasonably sourced and in compliance with WP:LIVING, more robust. However, as more and more sources have been added, Peroxisome has shifted to out-and-out denialism (i.e. claiming that the sources don't say what they say). I've started to think that Peroxisome is more just a garden-variety troll, based on his/her comments on the talk page. It's becoming clear that Peroxisome is indeed trying to "game the system", by engaging in Wikilawyering and throwing policies around willy-nilly. Peroxisome is correct that "all we have done is go back to the primary literature"; if he/she takes the time to re-read WP:RS and WP:V, he/she will see that secondary sources (PRWatch, TNR) supported by primary sources (tobacco co. documents) is the gold standard for verifiability on Wikipedia. MastCell 20:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I probably should have stated earlier that Peroxisome is a well-known blogospheric troll, but I thought it better for Peroxisome to make this clear to everyone JQ 21:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

feel free to engage in all the name-calling you want; that will not make your statements any more true. The tobacco document you have provided is a budget for paying Milloy; not evidence that Milloy was actually paid, nor evidence that he was paid for advocacy; that is why the professional journalist referred to a budget. The TNR article speaks of payments to the company that Milloy is associated with, not to Milloy. These distinctions are crystal clear, and you deliberatetly ignore them because you want to write nasty things about Milloy, and you cannot back these things up with a reference. Peroxisome 22:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not crystal-clear. You seem to be the only one arguing these points; the two other independent folks who have chimed in seem to agree with my feeling that you're deliberately denying obvious and well-sourced facts. We're allowed to use common sense; if a tobacco company budget says "Milloy, $90,000", then we can conclude he was paid $90,000 by the tobacco company. I think most reasonable people would agree that you'd actually have to produce some kind of evidence that the budget was revised, or the $$$ not paid to Milloy, to disprove this. Finally, we're not talking about one document here; there are a web of documents, referenced by TNR and PRWatch and now sourced through this article, which corroborate the conclusion that Milloy received $$$ from tobacco and oil companies to advance their agenda under the cover of supposed independence. If you truly believe you have a point and we're all wrong here, consider utilizing Wikipedia mechanisms for dispute resolution. However, I'm starting to get the sense, based on your comments here, that you're more interested in trolling that in making this a better article. MastCell 22:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

dear mast, what you wrote was ," Milloy has repeatedly profited handsomely by being on the wrong side of public health issues". You start off with a belief that Milloy is evil, and after that, anything you write is justified. You are rationalising that you can state your conclusions as facts; yet if you truly believed it, you wouldn't need to misrepresent your conclusions as facts. In fact, why not put the false claim about epidemiology back in as well ? It will be consistent with the rest of the article. Peroxisome 08:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't start off with that belief; I came to it after examining the evidence documenting it. I removed the claim about cancer clusters because it overreached the available evidence, in keeping with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, etc. I'm not sure why you're criticizing my action there. You argued the claim was unsupported, I examined the evidence and agreed, and I removed it. Isn't that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? If I fail to respond to your next missive on the talk page, please don't take it as capitulation to your point of view. You're trolling, and unless you have something constructive to say about making the article better, I should really stop feeding into it. MastCell 17:12, 9 October 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)

NPOV tag

I've made some edits to describe the money from Philip Morris as "budgeted", not "received", by Milloy to address Peroxisome's criticism. Can you cite other instances where you believe WP:NPOV or WP:LIVING have been violated (or better yet, propose alternative wording)? I note that, although you listed this site on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard 10 days ago, no one's chimed in yet. Which is too bad; I'd like some outside input. MastCell 19:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Having heard nothing, I am going to remove the POV tag. When reinstating it, please list specific areas of the article which you feel violate WP:NPOV and we can attempt to address them. MastCell 17:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated it. This entire article is a vicious anti-Milloy hit piece, as many comments here have adequately documented. NCdave 08:36, 16 June 2007 (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 [4]. 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)

List of so called "debunked" theories from his Mug

global warming ddt silicone breast implants dioxin alar mad cow second hand smoke ozone depletion emf pcb's endocrine disruptorsIlena 16:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Attributing criticism

Hello - I understand the need to attribute criticism, and the criticism is fully attributed throughout the body of the article. However, in the lead I tried to summarize criticisms that have been raised. I'm not sure how, or whether, they should be attributed in the lead, since Milloy has been criticized by a wide variety of sources (PRWatch, American Chemical Society journal, TNR, The Guardian, Mother Jones, the Washington Post, etc). Suggestions? In general I've seen articles in which criticisms are mentioned in generality in the lead, and then specifics are given in the body of the article (including attribution) - this is what I'd prefer here. MastCell ^Talk 01:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a very wide variety. Except for the journal, those are all liberal sources. Shouldn't we also mention what conservative sources say? After all, liberals and conservatives are split 50-50 on most environmental issues. For example, Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe says only 23% of registered Republicans accept the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, while 75% of registered Democrats do. (According to my math, that means 75% of Republicans oppose AGW and 75% of Democrats support it - just about the most even split I can think of, except for the debate this week in New York's liberal haven, a neighborhood notable enough to have its own article: the Upper West Side. Dr. Connolley gave me the link to the transcript. --Uncle Ed 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I glanced at ONE of those sources: the New Rebublic - pretty much the mirror image of Bill Buckley's National Review. They said that "he cast aside two decades of research on the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke" (but without giving any details). I guess it's simply common knowledge that secondhand smoke causes cancer.

I'm going to study the Passive smoking article now, but it's not heartening to see that the first "scientific" footnote is actually a reference to a United Nations agency with the words "Parties recognize . . .". That is a political statement about the science, not a scientific statement.

A scientific statement would say how much smoke, how many people, what incidence of cancer compared to the control group, etc. Like "passive smoking has been found to increase the incidence of cancer from 1 in 10,000 to 16 in 10,000 - roughly the same as active smoking, which raises it to 24 in 10,000." Now that would be a smoking gun - no pun intended!

I don't want to see us quoting the *UN* as asserting that the scientific evidence is unequivocal - they're a bunch of governments each voting their national interest, not an objective source of info at all. I'd rather see a ref to a scientific paper. Better yet, a summary of what's in the paper. --Uncle Ed 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I read a few ref's and adding the most damning evidence I could find. I like to think that was in the spirit of Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. But then I found this:

• "Gathering all relevant information, researching and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS was a Group A carcinogen... In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme... and to influence public opinion... While so doing, [it] produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer." [5] (emphasized added for Wikipedia discussion)

This wouldn't be the first time EPA ignored scientific evidence. Remember the DDT ban? Anyway, the point is not to "take sides" and make the article assert that EPA let political or ideological motives steer it into junk science. We should merely quote opposing sides. If there's a majority and minority involved, we should try to identify that. Politically, I guess that would run 50-50 but I'd sure like to know more.

Scientifically, it's hard to tell. The passive smoking article only quoted the "bad" side - I didn't see anything "not so bad" or "benign" in my rapid overview.

Politically, of course, the position of U.S. Liberals on nearly all scientific questions relating to environmental politics is that the science is unequivocal, unanimous, or that there is a "consensus" favoring (surprise!) the Liberal position. It would be nice if Wikipedia could shed some light on this, by suppling scientific information on all sides of the question.

Of course, if there really *IS* a scientific majority vs. a scientific minority, then we should say so. It's just difficult to determine this sometimes. Who can tell us? --Uncle Ed 02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get into a liberal/conservative argument about the EPA, the environment, or passive smoking here. Who can tell us if a scientific majority thinks passive smoking is harmful? How about the World Health Organization, the U.S. Surgeon General (a G.W. Bush appointee, by the way), the Centers for Disease Control, the American Medical Association, etc? MastCell ^Talk 04:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientific majority

How would we as editors ascertain whether there is a scientific majority? Do scientists submit to polls? And why would that be relevant, anyway? Does science work by votes? With the lone exception of the APA decision to de-list homosexuality as a mental disorder, I cannot recall any matter which was ever settled by scientists voting on it (or being polled).

The thing about Milloy is that he criticizes junk science on the grounds that it's stuff made up, spun, massaged, etc. in way to make it look like it's sound science - when (as he purports to show) there are scientists who say just the opposite of what the partisans are saying. It doesn't surprise me that partisans would accuse him of being a junkie too - or even the only junkie. That's the problem with politicized science.

I think Wikipedia should not concern itself with a majority, if "majority" is taken to mean 51% of scientists polled. If it's only a majority, then maybe it's not firmly established. I'd rather have a scientific paper, or the result of a hearing, or even just a pronouncement by a learned society. But we should not give undue weight to a mere 51% majority.

How much of a majority on a scientific question must there be to call it a "consensus"? Is 80% enough? (Four out of five doctors say that transfats are no good for you?)

As a layman interested in science, I would want to know if as many as 5% of scientists in a particular field disagreed on anything. --Uncle Ed 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this relevant to a specific content issue of this article, or are we using this talk page for a philosophical discussion? MastCell ^Talk 03:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. This article slams Milloy without mercy for espousing minority viewpoints on issues like global warming, yet you ask whether Uncle Ed's observation is relevant?? NCdave 08:41, 16 June 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)

secondhand smoke

71.72.217.102 keeps removing the last paragraph of the Secondhand smoke section ("On June 27, 2006, summarizing over 10 years of scientific research, the United States Surgeon General issued a comprehensive scientific report concluding that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen with no risk-free level of exposure, refuting Milloy's claims.[11] The Surgeon General's report also stated that secondhand smoke exposure is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children.[11]"). S/he thinks that since Milloy is not named directly in the report this means it's not relevant. I don't see how this matters, since its obvious that the citing the report shows how Milloy's position contradicts the known science, and this seems highly relevant. Plus, there is no wikipolicy to support 71.72.217.102's position. Yilloslime 01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it again (sorry). This ia a biography. Without a doubt, its purpose is to document the life and views of Steven Milloy (no matter how unconventional they may be). The purpose of this article is not to debunk him; of course, some of his views are controversial, and any citation that references him and meets Wikipedia's standards would be appropriate. The Surgeon General's report was not written in response to Mr. Milloy; it does not mention him, nor does it refer to him in any way. It simply has no place in this article. This is not your soapbox. Furthermore, the information you site is readily available in the preceding paragraph under the "secondhand smoke" link, which was left intact. 71.72.217.102 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noted a direct link. While shilling for PM, Milloy called for the abolition of the Surgeon-General position, consistent with his general attacks on honest science, particularly as regards smoking. As a meta-observation on this article, every time a defender of Milloy comes along, the upshot is that yet more discreditable information on him turns up. So, 71.72.217.102, thanks for helping .JQ 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation

71.72.217.102 you've violated WP:3RR. As I assume you're new to Wikipedia, I suggest you read the policy and revert your own edit. Otherwise you are liable to be blocked from editing.JQ 06:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that new... this IP has been active at Passive smoking for a while now. Three guesses as to their POV there. MastCell ^Talk 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

just left a 3RR warning on his talk page, so if he reverts again i think we should go ahead and report him--something which I have no experience with, but i can give it my best shot.Yilloslime 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already done so (reported to WP:AN3). I chose not to block him myself since I'm involved here. This is not a new user, has been editing from this IP and POV for awhile, and should know better than to edit-war. MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

... and the report has been declined due to lack of warning. Well, now he's been warned, so hopefully we can get a little more discussion here and less edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The report was properly declined. I do, in sincerity, apologize for violation of the 3RR (for which I was unaware). In good faith, I documented reasons for the revert when I did do, and finally did so here as well. Before the section is again deleted, please explain in detail how the commercial for the SG relates to the biography of Mr. Milloy. To the best of my knowledge, the article is not a forum to debunk him. If there is evidence that report was written to refute him (most likely by the mention of his name), then it is proper. If it not, then it doesn't belong here. This would conform with Wikipedia standards on the biography of living persons. There is plenty of information here already that could be taken negatively about him, as well as the link to the secondhand smoke article. And I don't need three guesses for your POV, MastCell. 71.72.217.102 05:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion on a new section and have followed it. The facts (Milloy attacks SG, SG refutes Milloy) are mutually relevant. Of course, the obvious inference, and the reason the two are connected, is that Milloy's attack was designed to keep scientific information adverse to his paymasters from the public, but drawing that conclusion in the article would be OR. JQ 06:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My POV is, simply, that Wikipedia should accurately represent the current state of scientific and medical knowledge. That said, I actually agree that the Surgeon General paragraph is a little awkward. Perhaps it should be cut down to a sentence or so on the end of the secondhand smoke paragraph? MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The section is misleading still, and the issue needs further attention. The call for abolition of the SG office was made when the office was vacant and had been vacant for three years; the issue at hand was excessive government spending (not a quarrel between Mr. Milloy and the SG, per se). It was not a call for the removal of a particular individual. The statement was issued more than 8 years before the SG report on secondhand smoke, so there is not a real connection between the two events. I'm open to suggestions, but it looks like I might have to add information from the source itself. 71.72.217.102 03:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"the issue at hand was excessive government spending" Give me a break! You surely don't believe this. JQ 06:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose that the cited article being titled in the "Federal Budget and Spending" section, and the discussion of the need for 6,300 government employees that (in his opinion) weren't productive had anything to do with it. This whole thing is becoming comical for me. 71.72.217.102 10:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I do agree that the Surgeon General paragraph, as currently existing, is a little awkward and perhaps borders on WP:SYN. I've taken a shot at fixing this; I've removed the SG paragraph, and instead of the previous paragraph on passive smoking, appended one sentence describing scientific/medical opinion on secondhand smoke, for context. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's good, but it's not just the SG that think ETS/passive smoking causes cancer and other maladies. Perhaps we should say something like Secondhand smoke is currently recognized by the United States Surgeon General, the AMA, the XYZ, etc. It's not simply Milloy vs the SG, but Milloy vs the scientific establishment. Yilloslime 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine (something like "Secondhand smoke is currently recognized by the medical and scientific community as a cause of ...") I was just too lazy to dig up the refs for the IARC, WHO, etc, but they're in the passive smoking article. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think - if you must - a general statement that goes something like this would work great: "Mr. Milloy's views on the dangers of secondhand smoke are at odds with leading health and medical authorities." (cite reference). That is pretty neutral and factual. Wikipedia at its finest.209.168.176.130 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a pretty good suggestion. MastCell ^Talk 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with removal of the SG section. I think this is an interesting example of Milloy's work in itself. I'd be happy to include the purported rationale of reducing govt spending.JQ 05:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

JQ, perhaps his stance on the SG office (recommending its abolition) could be worked in elsewhere, but without commentary. I'll work on the above item tomorrow night (I'm out of town for the weekend). Or if anyone else wants to give it a shot, please feel free. 209.168.176.130 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)