Environment/Nature

Milloy proves he's either incompetent or a liar in latest op-ed

In his Washington Times op-ed titled 2012 GOP guide to the climate debate,” commentator Steve Milloy made a large number of claims that are demonstrably wrong – 18 at last count. But one of his claims relating to the illegal hack and release of climate scientists’ emails dubbed “Climategate” casts a shadow over all the others. Milloy wrote that “[n]o input from skeptics, even those mentioned in the emails, was included” in the “Climategate” investigations. However, Milloy’s own prior writings on the topic demonstrate that his statement in the Washington Times op-ed is false.

On July 14, 2010, Milloy wrote a commentary for The Daily Caller titled “Penn State’s integrity crisis.” In the commentary, Milloy wrote that “[o]f the five additional interviews conducted, four were of Mann’s fellow alarmists. The lone climate skeptic interviewed was MIT professor Richard Lindzen.” Furthermore, Milloy wrote that he contacted Lindzen personally about his experience during the interview:

[Lindzen] told me, “They also basically ignored what I said. I suppose they interviewed me in order to say that they had interviewed someone who was skeptical of warming alarm.”

Milloy also crossposted the Daily Caller commentary to his own Green Hell blog.

Milloy was also aware that climate disruption denier Benny Peiser of The Global Warming Policy Foundation had submitted a memorandum to the UK House of Commons inquiry. Milloy linked to an edited version of Peiser’s memo at the Financial Post in March, 2010, as shown in Milloy’s Junkscience.com archive for that month.

And in July 2010, shortly after the release of the Independent Climate Change Email Review, Milloy linked to an interview with Steve McIntyre, one of the deniers mentioned most often in the CRU emails, where McIntyre discussed that he hadn’t been interviewed but had submitted written testimony.

Finally, the Penn State investigation final report, the oral and written evidence presented to the House of Commons inquiry, and the evidence presented to the ICCER are all publicly available and all demonstrate that Milloy’s claim is false.

These facts leave us with only two possible conclusions regarding Milloy’s recent Washington Times op-ed – either Milloy is incompetent and unqualified to comment on climate science and politics, or he’s a liar. Either way, the readers of the Washington Times are poorly served by his op-ed.

9 replies »

  1. It seems possible that he’s incompetent AND a liar.

    Also, re: your last sentence there, let’s not overestimate the average WashTimes reader. That crowd is being served exactly the way they want to be served.

  2. People are now seeing that the High Priests of CAGW don’t really know what they are talking about. Soon the truth will be out about them. If their results can’t be reproduced their work is garbage release all data and code if they believe so strongly and let the world see.

  3. genealogymaster, all of the data and code needed to reproduce their results have been freely available for years. But that doesn’t matter to folks like you, because you guys wouldn’t know what to do with the data/code anyway.

Leave a Reply to Samuel Smith Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s