Steve Milloy provides the only antidote strong enough to stop a plague of ignorance: a liberal dose of education
- A Nuclear Street Book Review by Randy Brich -
Sometimes a guy has to step back, take a long deep breath and reassess everything he thought he knew as fact. Some people conduct this exercise without even thinking, critically examining all that floats their way with the dispassionate eyes of an objective observer. Christopher Columbus did it. Galileo Galilei did it. Charles Darwin did it. Albert Einstein did it. And the world has not been the same since.
Now, Steve Milloy does it. Milloy chooses to question the core, the root beliefs, the very essence of the modern environmental movement that has swept across America and the western world like a plague. And, like any plague, it will have to run its course unless the proper antidote is developed and those at risk are inoculated. In GREEN HELL: HOW ENVIRONMENTALISTS PLAN TO CONTROL YOUR LIFE AND WHAT YOU CAN DO TO STOP THEM, Steve Milloy provides the only antidote strong enough to stop a plague of ignorance: a liberal dose of education. GREEN HELL describes example after example of the green’s agenda to control your life, your liberty, your economy and details several ways you can become personally involved to try to stop the spread of the plague.
A good example is his little exercise with Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream’s crusade against dioxins. After visiting a Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream shop and noticing promotional literature proclaiming, “The only safe level of dioxin exposure is no exposure at all,” Milloy and Michael Gough purchased a pint of Ben and Jerry’s “World’s Best Vanilla” ®, had it tested for dioxin, found it was 200 times the virtual safe dose prescribed by the EPA for adults and over 700 times the VSD for children, wrote a paper and presented the results at the Dioxin 2000 scientific conference in Monterey, California. Then the fun started as Milloy recounts,
“We then posed the following questions: ‘If dioxin is as dangerous as Ben and Jerry’s, Greenpeace—Ben and Jerry’s science advisor—and the EPA claim, then how can Ben & Jerry’s be permitted to sell its ice cream? Doesn’t the company care about ‘the children?’?” Our dioxin study was a huge hit. It throttled Ben & Jerry’s ill-conceived anti-dioxin campaign—an embarrassment the company is still trying to explain away on its website.”
Many readers will recognize Steve Milloy as the editor of Junkscience.com whose slogan is “All the junk that’s fit to debunk” and Milloy continues his campaign against environmentalism - scientifically, succinctly, and sarcastically arguing that progress, development and a healthier environment go hand in hand. He persuasively shows that curtailing the use of fossil fuels to combat global warming is futile. Milloy argues that the cooling experienced on the planet for the last 10 years while carbon dioxide levels continue to rise is enough proof for him that global warming isn’t happening, at least not at the levels purported by “Planetary Surgeon General” Al Gore. Milloy then proceeds to strip away the veneer covering Al Gore, exposing him as a hypocrite since his monthly electrical usage at his mansion exceeds the average American household use for an entire year. He does the same for Virgin Airways owner Branson, Google’s Corporate Officers, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who say one thing but act very differently.
Milloy’s irreverent style and unabashedly “in your face” approach distinguish him as a no BS, bottom line kind of guy. Milloy painstakingly outlines the environmentalists’ green agenda using their own words. He then compares their words with their actions, identifies disconnects and lets the chips fall where they may. From mandated rationing of population growth, to mandatory usage of specific types of energy generation, to limiting between basin exchanges of fresh water, to vegetarianism, to the real dangers of subcompact eco-cars, to an overbearing new big green brother, to a new social order, to devolving businesses, to watching America recede in the rearview mirror, to the first real green president, Milloy’s heavily referenced and footnoted tome brazenly challenges the environmentalists’ status quo and finds it wanting. Where there’s deception, he asks for honesty. Where there’s misinformation, he provides the facts. Where there are unknowns, he asks the questions.
Pondering the imponderable, questioning the unquestionable and seeking the truth as science best understands it at this current space in time, Milloy does a remarkable job keeping the reader interested, informed, educated and entertained. Authors like Milloy provide a service for any person concerned enough to read the material and find out on their own the facts surrounding a host of environmental topics. And Milloy saves his best for last, slaying the dragon of Global Warming using the sword of truth by stating,
“While we’re all in favor of protecting the environment and controlling pollution, the greens portray themselves as inhabiting a higher moral plane. Their underlying message is that if you don’t sign on to what they want, it means you don’t love the planet, or worse, you’re out to destroy it. And they have fingered their primary villain, or at least the villain of the moment: carbon dioxide—a colorless and odorless gas that exists naturally in the atmosphere at trace levels. Humans exhale it. Plants need it to grow. Both industrial and personal “manmade” emissions of carbon dioxide combined are vanishingly small when compared to natural CO^2 emissions. There’s no scientific data indicating that controlling human emissions of carbon dioxide will change, much less “improve,” global climate in any predictable or even detectable way.”
“Yet, according to the greens, your responsibility for carbon dioxide necessitates you sacrificing your standard of living. And not only you—think of all the people around the world denied the ability to use their own natural resources to better their lives, denied the ability to climb out of crushing poverty through economic development and free trade, and denied even the ability to use pesticides like DDT to protect themselves and their children against deadly Malaria-bearing mosquitoes. Now contrast their situation to how the green elites live—Al Gore and his prodigious personal consumption of electricity; Richard Branson and his private island getaways and space travel for VIPs only; the Google guys and their personal sky pig; and the World Wildlife Fund and its private jet expedition around the world, to name just a few examples.”
“Aside from providing perks and exemptions to be enjoyed by these folks and other special interests, green is a political movement that seeks to put a happy face on an otherwise oppressive and regressive social and political agenda. Green is not “green” as some ecoprofiteers would have you believe. As many free-market thinkers have warned us, green is the new red—both financially and politically.”
To his credit Milloy has written, at least to the best of my ability, an error-free treatise that will go down in history as a scathing expose’ of the self-proclaimed environmentalists who, in reality, are little more than anti-nuclear activists and true believers in every sense of the phrase first coined by Eric Hoffer way back in 1951.
Steve MilloyGREEN HELL: HOW ENVIRONMENTALISTS PLAN TO CONTROL YOUR LIFE AND WHAT YOU CAN DO TO STOP THEM, 294 pp. Regnery Publishing, Inc., Hardcover, 2009978-1-59698-585-8
About Randy BrichRandy graduated from South Dakota State University in 1978 with a M.S. in Biology. After developing the State of South Dakota’s environmental radiological monitoring program, he became a Health Physicist with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, eventually transferring to the Department of Energy where he specialized in environmental monitoring, worker protection, waste cleanup and systems biology. Later in his career he published a multi-sport adventure guide book and became a regular contributor to The Entertainer Newspaper’s Great Outdoor section.
Since then he has retired from the federal government and, after taking time out to build an energy efficient house near the Missouri River, has formed Diamond B Communications LLC. Diamond B Communications LLC uses a multimedia approach to explain complex energy resource issues to technical and non-technical audiences. He also guides for Dakota Bike Tours, the Relaxed Adventure Company, offering tours of the Badlands National Park, the Black Hills and Devils Tower National Monument.
Anonymous comments will be moderated. Join for free and post now!
Good Job RF
I will read this one
Alright... there's something I don't get. I am a young engineer currently working in the Nuclear Industry. I have read about, observed and been witness to a lot of environmentalist follies. But why attack global warming as a hoax? I have plenty of co-workers who have made their opinion on this... loudly, and I just don't get it. The nuclear industry only benefits from whatever hysteria the greens ramp up about 'global warming.'
Personally, I really don't care if climate change is true or not. I just happen to like pollution free energy. I like backpacking, hiking and rafting. 'Dangerous' carbon dioxide is practically synonymous with sulfuric acid, nitrates, mercury and lead that is spewed from fossil fuel plants. So then, why not let them get up in arms about it? Why do people feel the need to retaliate? If my experience in the nuclear industry has yielded anything, it's that the greens are a faith organization. If you can't reason with them about the inherent safety of a controlled nuclear reaction with a negative void coefficient then how can you reason with them about the temperature outside?
Overall, I feel that when one argues against global warming but is pro-nuclear than we are only hurting ourselves, because any outside liberal, global warming believer who happens to be on the fence regarding nuclear power will easily be turned off when it appears that to be pro-nuclear is to be every other label the greens throw out, such as: right wing, greedy, secretive and willing to hurt the public to make a profit.
Scott, if you come back to look, the fundamental issue is the essential link between science and truth. Without truth in all aspects of one's work, there can be no science. Yes, NP should be pursued far more aggressivly, but anti-CO2 lies are counterproductive to scientific progress of all kinds.
The end does not justfy the means.
'Debunking' global warming just makes the author look like a crank to the vast majority of Scientists. Climate change is the one of the stronger reasons for accelerating the development of nuclear power.
Here is a book I recommend you review:
'Sustainable Energy, Without the Hot Air' by David MacKay.
Thanks for the recommendation. I just received MacKay's book, SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, WITHOUT THE HOT AIR, and will read it next.
As a young environmental engineer, I like nuclear energy because it cuts back on coal plants, so why this article is in Nuclear Power Industry News seems strange to me. I agree with Scott, whether global warming exists or not, which is hard for anyone to say at this point for sure, I don't see why we can't take steps forward to progress towards cleaner energy.
Humans will grow and progress no matter what, but we do need to reduce our impact on the earth in order to sustain several billion more people. Perhaps Milloy doesn't remember when several rivers used to catch on fire yearly due to oil pollution, and when Pittsburg, I believe, was so smoggy during the Industrial Revolution that they had to run streetlamps 24/7 because they couldn't see the sun. I don't really want my grandchildren living in a world like that. No one wants to see higher taxes, and especially not child rationing, but if there were no regulations, we'd all be dead from cholera or tuberculosis.
Jenna, one can appreciate your thoughts on the matter, albeit I find it a bit naive. Development and progress towards a cleaner environment have taken place at an almost proportional rate to the technological advances that have been made (many of them during your "dirty" Industrial revolution). Mankind did not set out to see just how polluted they could make the earth, we all, as humans have merely been trying to advance our standard of living and make progress, develop and mature since our ancestors first picked up stones and sticks.
Now, a reduction in the impact we have in that process over time has been a function of our own awareness, as in the case of Pittsburgh, realizing that a better way exists to achieve the same goals, and produce steel in a more efficient, cleaner manner. Measures were taken - it's not fair to reference past events like this, when those measures have already succeeded in eliminating the dangers that existed. So, by saying you don't want your grandchildren "living in a world like that", have you not seen the progress for yourelf? What exactly are you afraid of? I've been to PIttsburgh several times in the past few years, I've certainly seen no smog in the proportions you speak of.
I believe what Milloy is attempting to illustrate here (and I'm interested, and will read his book), is the political agenda hidden behind the green movement; and how effective it is at recruiting followers if only because nobody wants to be on the other side of the fence and labeled as an "Earth hater". The whole thing reeks of absurdity if you ask me, and why more people are not questioning the so-called "movement" is beyond me.
Personally, I love the environment myself - I do not advocate spoiling our waterways, destroying the Amazon rainforest, and pumping harmful chemicals and gases into the air. CO2, as stated, is NOT a pollutant, but has been labeled as such by liberal activists. Right away exists a glaring flaw in the "facts" as they are being portrayed.
Also, the hypocrisy of the movement's self-appointed "leaders" speaks loudly in of itself.
Incidentally, we're not all dead from cholera or tuberculosis because of advances in modern medicine.
As an Environmental Engineer I can certainly appreciate your work, but sadly it appears as though you've fallen victim to the same old tired rhetoric that's been circulating around for years now. I hope that you continue what you do (as I'm sure you will), but at least have an open mind to seek the actual truths in your line of work.
I am sorry, but as a supporter of Nuclear Energy and as a witness to the increasing awareness amongst nuclear engineers, at the grass roots level(and I distinguish them from the Corporate heads who take dangerous cost cutting measures that affect not only safety, but also philosophical life-issues and do it often in a clandestine manner) to design, build, maintain and manage safe Nuclear power plants, I find the intrusion of this green-bashing article as nothing but a polemical attack coming from the same swamp that breeds the Limbaugh types. Populist, anti-regulatory, lobbyist in nature, its sweeping remarks about global warming, which parts of the world, including us here in North America are experiencing this very summer (never mind the rising waters in South Asia that have permanently inundated hundreds of villages that have never seen severe floods) is borderline crude.This is purely political and lobbyist and the wrong steps for a clean Nuclear industry.Attacking global warming as a a hoax is borderline insane, at this pint.
As a geologist and supporter of the nuclear industry (I'm actually on the remediation end of the legacy business), global warming is a "ride" we humans need to grasp as part of inhabiting this dynamic rock. We're just spectators to volcanic and glacial cycles, so adaptation is more important really. Wish us luck.