Cool! John of MetaJohn/Thinkhole responded to my query about the Milloy/Redford article. Here's my response:

Hi John,

Thanks alot for your response, it was thought provoking to say the least.

I'm glad that you don't agree with everything Milloy says, but I take it that you don't think that the evidence for health effects caused by air pollution is strong enough to influence public policy. The studies I found only show a statistical correlation but there is also a reasonable explanation of cause and effect. The consensus among the scientific community seems to be that a causal association has been established. We did pass the Clean Air Act, after all.

Obviously Redford's sole purpose for making his statements was to convince people to reject the President's energy policy, but if his arguments are backed up by science I don't see how it can be called scare mongering.

Redford isn't a scientist but neither is the President, and he comments on the environment and energy policy all the time. Hopefully they are both advised by knowledgeable scientists. They both have a perfect right to express their opinions and I think their arguments should be evaluated according to their content not their source.

If you're suggesting that the President's energy policy won't increase air pollution I'd be curious to know why you think that.


John says he'll have a chance to reply after the weekend.