>> i'm going to start with an excerpt from my new book, green hell out environment lists plan to control your life and when you can do to stop them and then conclude a message. but we if you interested in daily updates environmentalists plan to control your life and what you can do i encourage you visit the website i have set up, greenhellblog.com. ..

we will reinvent energy. our goal is a healthy and just plan, we are permitted people live in harmony with nature. but perhaps unlike others in a mad rush to start to bicycling, recycling and carbon the cycling you have been distracted from the breeding of america by many other crises in controversies -- the global financial meltdown, the wars in afghanistan and iraq, illegal immigration and so on, they are, indeed, a form of a lot but has said recognizing a great degree in tsunami is heading your way. threatening to wash with your standard of living in many of your liberties by many americans

your sense of great movement be is simply advocates live sound changes to benefit to the environment. but the great agenda is a back more ambitious promoting countless new regulations designed to reorder society from top to bottom and so the greens, artists with dos and don'ts. take cold showers, turn heat down, use less air conditioning, dry your clothes on a clothesline, drive small to efficient vehicles or stop driving, bring your own bags to the supermarket, buy energy efficient light bulbs, pay more for bring electricity, pay more for gasoline, a bottled water and dry the restaurants, use cloth diapers, clean your house with a natural products, turn your cats and dogs into begins, clean up your yard, forget about words of the living in the suburbs, vertical living in urban areas is for you. all these have something in common -- you living on a smaller more inconvenience more uncomfortable a more expensive and less enjoyable less freed

less a dignified and less hopeful scale and the greens moral heckling is just beginning. there are bursting with the zeal to be dictated by force of law your mobility, died come home energy usage, the size of your house, how far you can travel and how many children you can have. you may be tempted to dismiss all this as a gross exaggeration but this is how the greens themselves describe their intentions. their words alone a reveal their true intent to curtail to ration and $0.4 an eye, compassion and squeeze. make no mistake living brain is really about someone else microbe regulating you, downsizing your dreams and plugging each one of us into a brand of social order will never pardon for. about youth living under the green thumb and having the boundaries of your life john by others, the central concept of "green hell" is there no area of your life now one tiny parcel of your insistence that the greens consider off limits to intrusion. there is no personal behavior

they consider to sing% to regulate. they aim to bring about their brave new world through federal or local ordinance. but or that is not practical there will set of producing artificial shortages, pricing after bad habits by hiking taxes and imposing surcharges or conditioning you and those around you to believe that you are engaging in active severe personal transaction. all this is necessary to solve our alleged planetary emergency but they don't intend to live this downsize lifestyle for some finite time until is supposed crisis is over. it is a permanent restructuring of live as you know it. three out a green hal he will encounter up close and personal. encroachments and mechanisms of your day to day life living behind a label that read screen. the powerful network of individuals and organizations is propelling the agenda, its adherents have soft fur that is to transform our economy in my life based on environmental pretax, population growth and

global cooling. man-made global warming is simply their latest and by far the most successful organized campaign to achieve this transformation. these activists are now there are federal, state and local governments and regulatory agencies in our courtrooms, board rooms and classrooms. though most work in relative anonymity they have an outspoken political activists most vocal being al gore but there is a vast molten layer network of organizations working to advance the downhill for the greens. from the earth liberation front and fbi little terrorist group to street theater groups like greenpeace and the rainforest action network, to suit and tie mainstream activist groups like the natural resources defense council and a environmental fun two private foundations like the rockefeller foundation and the pew charitable trusts, the greens are able to muster whatever force is needed, thugs, protesters, lawyers and leads respectively. serious money makes it work, the 10 largest green groups have

revenues of more than $1.36 billion in 2007 and net assets of $7.1 billion. on the agreement work forces are natural resources defense council, 88 million in annual revenue and 167 million in assets according to forbes and the environmental defense fund, 83 million in annual revenue and hundred 8 million in assets, let me digress from "green hell" -- to give you an idea of how much money this is if you compare this to the heritage foundation in which is the largest conservative think tank both environmental defense fund and natural resources defense council have greater revenues and greater assets than heritage. while heritage focuses on many different issues affecting our lives, the greens only focus on one issue. and finally the green groups are the smallest of the green groups. in the smallest so that gives an idea of what we're up against.

back to "green hell". these two groups of the core of the green army, they serve as braintrust, law and lobbying firms, bridges between limousine greens and the straight ruffians and flypaper for celebrities like want to be dreams like barbra streisand and leonardo da cabriole. adding to the manx are their rent seeking big businesses that are carrying the ball for the greens including general electric, goldman sachs, morgan stanley, dow chemical, du pont, caterpillar, pepsi, and many others that are lobbying for global warming legislation and all expect to profit in the from taxpayer subsidies our laws and regulations that forced them to purchase over press products that they otherwise ordinarily sean. one of the most socially inequitable aspects of this movement is as if they ever read in gains more power is members are devising a nifty loopholes, exemptions and free passes for the rich and powerful friends and allies who have helped them further their political agenda into the mainstream so they can

escape rate. al gore wants you to try your clothes on outdoor clothes on to save energy budget to be sure when he gets out of his indoor swimming pool that cossacks under dollars a month to keep he won't be two in the same thing. it seems that 200 plus years of technological innovation in the free market share and prosperity and individual freedoms that have defined our unique place in the world and john countless generations of immigrants to our shores in search for a better life have not impress the greens, the plan to diminish the famous your graphic, social and economic mobility of america, the very things that have made us feel anything is possible. there are keen to reverse our number one producing more goods and services at less cost, they rail against economic growth as applied upon society in the planet, they applaud d.c. gotcha -- they seek to do this. but is there some merit to their argument, what of the planet chile has a fever that britain's

world wide discretion? should and we he their warnings? well, it is beyond the scope of "green hell" to bid debunk the alarmists, we will take a moment to know the fatal flaw of the global warming. there is no scientific evidence saying that carbon dioxide emissions control or even measurable impact of climate. this is true whether you look at data going back 650,000 years from the 20th-century or even from the past 10 years. alarm is predictions to are based exclusively on the hypothetical models that have never been validated against the real world. and it is no wonder there are resorting to hide is like having imaginary united nations consensus on global warming endorsed by 2,000 scientists while ignoring the petition signed by more than 31,000 american scientists rejecting global warming alarmists of. then there is the famous in the mess hockey sticks which the u.n. and other alarmists cited as the key evidence of dramatic rise in temperatures during the

20th-century and telegraph was discredited by its mythological flaws. let's not forget the judge in britain who barred teachers from showing al gore and can be a truth without a disclaimer concerning all the films errors which amassed nearly one-half percent of the film scientific material. with so little evidence on their side it's not surprising that global warming always are reluctant to discuss science, the debate is over there and says, how convenient. the goal of the greens' global warming scare campaign is to create an overpowering. urgency we must act now the matter what the cost, sparing no hyperbole or a standard tactic on the way the movement is bigger and more influential come easily boeing over ceos, celebrities and journalists. just as of the greens have increased their numbers in congress and even capture the oval office, the current economic crisis has been an opportunity for them to use the billions of dollars in government bailout in stimulus funds as leverage to insist that

recipient bank's autumn makers in key industries adhere to grain policies, the bailouts along with president of mama's $800 billion stimulus program and tapestry carbon cutting regime offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to advance their agenda dramatically. without a doubt president obama is a true believer in the green cause, many don't realize that he owes his national political career to the greens and yellows of the sierra club and others that lesson from the democratic crowd in illinois in 2004 and helped make him a u.s. senator. for the greens is payback time. viewing our current living centers as excessive and immoral is determined to downsize our live south of the good of the planet. during his campaign president obama warned that we can try -- and drive as tvs and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times, and expect that other countries will say okay, that is not leadership, that is not run to happen. forget that during the winter president obama kept the oval office does enough to grow orchids and the president obama

justified a chef to five from st. louis to washington d.c. to make pizza for the first family. that is not leadership but it is happening. so get ready, your choice of a car coming eating habits and home energy situations are not your private business and out of the government's business. the greens succeed we will see a vision for our fishing implemented with staggering speed and by the time you finish "green hell" you may well be appalled by that pigeon but may also find yourself in of the share totality of the greens agenda and single-minded determination to achieve it. he might now associates agrees with her soft and fuzzy public image but this will likely change as our new government and topps increasingly diverse of policies of a virtue on whether you want or not, don't say you weren't warned. all we're all in favor of protecting the environment and control pollution and they protect themselves as in having a higher moral plane, underlying message is if you don't sign on for what they want it means you don't love the planet or out to destroy it and they have figured

it their primary villain for that at least, carbon dioxide, colorless odorless gas naturally in the atmosphere at trace levels. humans exhalant, plants needed to grow, both industrial and personal man in from the backside and are small compared to natural co2 emissions. there is no scientific data indicating that controlling human emissions will change or improve global climate in a detectable way. yet according to green's your responsibility for carbon dioxide necessitates use sacrificing your standard of living. it and not only you, think all the peoples around the world denied the right to use their natural resources to better their lives, denied the right to climb out of a crushing party through economic free trade and denied the right to use pesticides like ddt to protect their children against deadly malaria bearing mosquitoes. contrast our situation of how the greens live -- al gore and his prodigious personal consumption of electricity,

virgin airlines owner rich branson and his private island getaway is, space travel for vips only, the google guys and their personal boeing 757 party chance and the world wildlife fund and his private jet expedition around the world for in a suit could afford to spend $65,000 justin m. of examples. aside from providing personal exemptions to be enjoyed by these folks another special interest bearing is a political movement to put a happy face on an otherwise oppressive regressive and depressive social and political agenda. green is not green if some ego profiteers would believe, as many free-market thinkers have one of us in green is the new red both financially and politically. i will give an had tip today to washington post columnist bob samuelson who in a column today entitled obama's economic mirage wrote that obama's capt. trade plan quote thomas use -- sets aside and economic progress. he writes that obama wants us to spend more for energy and get

less. it is crucial that we by the misinformation that green's permanent. so much of the greens rationale for forcing us to adopt new beheadings is based on their claims of scarcity for nearly all life's essentials but let's look at the facts. are we in danger of running out of food? hardly, we have so much for american afford to turn into ethanol and burned as fuel. we have so much farmland that the federal government actually pays farmers billions per year not to grow crops on tens of millions of acres. what about water? the most abundant services on earth although green has government policies making it harder to export water bridges to scarcity. forget about the sound in a water, the greens will lead us and about energy, are we running out of energy? as far as conventional energy goes in the u.s. is a saudi arabia called, we have so much we could convert to a liquid fuel of what if the greens with less. the only way the call is not a major part of our energy future is of the brain's regulation of existence, and natural gas, many

from our canadian supplies as long as the markets rather than government mandates drive supply and demand. while any featured shortcomings could be met by importing liquefied natural gas the greens surged in the best to block construction of the necessary terminals and port facilities. we also have plenty of oil in a harness that is to believe. which include an offshore and public lands like a well liked national refuge and pass that they will tarzan's in canada and oil shale in the western u.s., both the saudi arabian proportions. these vast oil resources of the solutions to our energy needs as well as the vexing problem of mideast oil, is two that oil and tar sands will be more expensive than conventional. soil but koses of the main hurdle, the greens are. if you throw nuclear power into the energy mix we really are an issue powerhouse or a potential powerhouse. and for the mere existence of these resources doesn't mean anything if we permit ourselves from developing and using them.

do you think that the greens are our for renewable energy like wind, solar and biofuels? began, the fluorescent green robert f. kennedy jr. opposes a wind farm income, because it would ruin the view from his compound i live behind the iron curtain in maryland. r green gavankar, martin o'malley, has been a wind turbines from public lands because they are eyesores. what happened to the planetary emergency? a wind farm in georgia been blocked her secret years ending in canada bonds because of my wife of the migratory birds out this guy. in may 2008 the department of interior bureau of land management place a moratorium on new solar projects on public lands have to modify the desert gridders. moratorium was lifted after the solar screen it bloody murder. the greens have no serious energy policy other than to sabotaging cause chaos.

at the center of the green agenda is their opposition to economic growth which is ironic in that economic growth and prosperity has proven to be the most attractive and humane way to protect the environment and provide overpopulation, two bowls of greens. but they now seem to have no such a proposition concerning the western world where there primarily active is on overpopulation but the opposite, the birthrate in many countries have dropped below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. so the greens should really welcome back and a devout and as a natural coercion family planning but instead they've chosen to go down a different road hoping to ramp to their agenda by intimidation, demonization and government dictates. while there is no lasting conspiracy that means regularly plan the disparate groups that comprise the grain movement are working toward a common goal, increase government control of our lives. our goal is to make sure that day never comes and we have our work cut out for us. that is the end of excerpt from "green hell". now have a few other points of

light to make before i take questions. in his new but the rebellion of ronald reagan a history of the end of the cold war, scholar james mann is a plan that what ronald reagan that like most about communists and, as some dislike dating back to in his president of the screen actors guild was favor secretive and deceitful. what really bothered reagan was that the communists and act out in the open and they were deceitful but what they really wanted. fast forward 60 years and we see the greenback in the same way, secretive and deceitful. what is so secretive about the greens to ask? they act on the open, though they? yes en no. yes they tell you they want us to be green but know they don't tell you why they want us to be green. so why do they want us to go grain prices is at all about the environment and saving the planet? not at all, the environment as a shield behind which they advance their social and political agenda. at this point i need to differentiate, i roughly categorize greens into five

distinct groups: first, there are the fanatical nature worshipers, those to the empowerment in nature and virtually religious sense. my view is by themselves of these people are fairly harmless. they have no overriding political agenda and their political power. second, there are the do-gooder's, those who in good faith what i consider to be sheer ignorance of the relevance is believe we're headed toward in bremen's a catastrophe. in comparison to the nation -- nature worshipers there are a problem because their respectability may some ideal for it is in the green agenda. third, there are other profiteers, people who like al gore stand to make billions of dollars from global warming regulation. in this category that is big business who are as we speak paid the big time lobbyist to push, legislation that will require taxpayers to subsidize not ready for prime time energy technologies and force consumers to purchase more expensive but less desirable products. fourth, there are the cowards,

particularly scientists and politicians who know or are concerned about what the score is with modern environmentalism but are too timid to afraid of standing against the tide. finally, there are the true greens, the ones that are running the show behind the curtain. the ones that exploit the fanatics of the do-gooder's, the profiteers and intimidate the coward to anti free enterprise, anti science agenda. you don't have to take my word about it, totalitarian nature and the agenda, if you need look no further than ever solution they propose two any environmental problem whether real or imagined. the solution is always more and more government control of our lives, more and more government control over business. less and less science and government policy making. in the age of ron reagan we call these people reds, but today green has become the new red. from the end of world war i to the end of the cold war the, the social political agenda was an

ethical to what america was that communists had to be secretive and lie to people about what they were doing and what they wanted and i can recommend whitaker chambers 1952 book with us on this point. it to ronald reagan's mind for the communists want was a terrific, why not come out and open it openly advocating work for the goal, be honest about it. today with the true greens want with the nothing less than total karma control of our lives, and as it is still entitled to most americans so secrecy and a cedar was again in the order of the day. the greens say they are for the environment, they say that mostly do with a what our plan will be destroyed, aided and abetted by the fanatics into gutters and profiteers and power is all useful idiots, the greens are using the concern for the environment particularly global warming as a shield behind which they advance agenda that most americans are in dark of appear in as publisher of a junkscience.com i spent the last 15 years time to expose the

faulty science in hope intellectual bankruptcy would be its downfall. the scientific rebuttal has proven to be a tough sell in the final analysis it is almost always easier to scare them to reassure the public. so in "green hell" i try some of that myself. rita "green hell", see if that is how you want to live, see if that is what kind of future you want for your children. what i know you will find most compelling in the book is the words on a page on really mine -- is not steve milloy until you have any children you can have, how you can live, how much water you can have, what you need a much more, i use the green is all language and their words convict them, not mine although in the near future my personal efforts will focus on the attack on a standard of living and our freedoms i haven't given up on the science. this is why i wrote "green hell" in the first place. when people find out for a sample that today's green agenda item is dictating what color car you can have as in california

latest crime is driving a dark colored car that requires more air conditioning which reduces gas mileage and causes the dreaded global warming, and tamara screen agenda is letting you know that you can't have you're own car or drive at all. it is my hope that when public will set up and saying maybe we ought to take another look at al gore's alleged human consensus. after all, maybe it is possible that the group that brought us they will corruption scandal and the guy who invented the internet have that's something else up their sleeves and they say we've got seven years left to save the planet. now, this is a final plug here. i have a i mentioned earlier my "green hell" blog website and i want to give an example of the source of stories of falling. over the weekend there was an abc news story about green technology is in a featured in the abc reporter interest meant

featured a green laptop computer. what was great about the laptop computer is that is casing was made of bamboo. [laughter] this is what she says about it. she says, what is great about it is that it does not plastics of that number one in looks really cool. you look like you are totally eco friendly and very chicken and the number two thing is when you're done with is a need to recycle there is no plastic year to clog landfills, it is bamboo and sell-through generating plant and there's lots of it. this kind of garbage is what is going out to americans and their like yes. let's consider some of of the laptop's, her report and a premier reality. there is still plenty of plastic using a laptop, only the cases bamboo and what about the bamboos shinier thing finished despite the name and organic compounds muted as environmentally incorrect. next bamboo doesn't recycle so much as it decomposes giving out

greenhouse gases. the plastic and laptops can be recycled for other uses, they actually are a better carbon with anything about it of the bamboo. resigned as a matter and i come almost all laptops are thrown into trash. fortunately there is no shortage of landfill space and an into your brother u.s. has more landfill capacity than ever before. now most bamboo comes from the endowment china, not only our greenhouse gases emitted of running bamboo by transporting the bamboo where finished products to the u.s. involves even more greenhouse gas emissions. and bamboo is not necessarily eco friendly, growing bamboo on a mass scale requires lots of energy. in water energy and fertilizer in pus, without fertilizer continuing -- bamboo is as bad personnel as, tobacco. so now what is the bamboo laptop cost compared to use his bamboo

laptop vs one of the comparable plastic -- because some of its $32 more. so you're getting ripped off, you're getting ripped off and not doing anything for the environment at all and that in a nutshell is what corrine is all about. it with that i will in my presentation and i'd be happy to take any questions. [applause] >> okay, if you have questions and we dooming questions, not speeches, i need for you to wait until the microphone guess you, stand up, tell us who you are and if you're with an organization of that is and then ask your question. great, i see one right here. >> i'm dan allen, my question is as the republican party tries to rebuild itself other aspects of

the grain limited can kind of a latch onto and make its own, like are there legitimate parts of the move meant? >> i thought we just went through this. i think that we are all for the environment. there is the environmentalists that don't operate on a high moral plane, we have laws and regulations to protect the and rabin have made tremendous progress of the last four years protecting the environment. there's nobody here that is for polluting. i don't think there are any companies today that are for planning, harness that is to believe. for some people. i think that what people need to do is recognize what is modern and green movement is all about. it is not about making us healthier, wealthier, not about saving the planet, not going to make your life marketing and are comfortable, not quick to make a more free -- is a shield behind

which the environmentalists' advance their left-wing social and political agenda. i see it as nothing less. and i challenge anyone to explain to me how the environmentalists are going to improve anybody's life other than maybe al gore and the solar and wind industry and some of the big businesses that want to do some rent seeking. how the average american environmentalists agree is going to improve their life beyond me -- why a republican politician would latch on to this other than going green and might be the right thing to do but that is in on thinking reason to do it. i heard a prominent republican governor in a couple weeks ago give a dinner speech talking about reaching the heights of corrine energy. you know what? it what you are worried about is carbon dioxide in coming out of coal and natural gas or oil, then the energy we have is clean right now.

.. will support republican politicians if they would stand up to the green. does that answer the question? >> okay, let's move right across that row.

>> but can you do to stop them given the current position of congress? >> i don't want to go into much because i want you to buy the book. [laughter] basically, we need to come to this realization as individuals that this is not about the environment. this is edna something else. the next thing, you have to get to your state, local, federal politicians. you have to grab them by the lapels and shake the hell out of them's a the understand that, too. it is only a couple of senators over there that i'd think can get this, both from oklahoma, everybody else can use a tutorial on corrine. and finally, just as a sort of conservative libertarians' tend to be laissez-faire in nature and not really activists and that is why we have all these things but activist groups on the left her we had in the think tanks there'll activist groups.

we need to get more active. instead of after a hard day's work going home and having dinner and spending time with family, unfortunately we are going to have to be more active. while we are having dinner, the green's are at the city council meeting and shoving up in numbers so i am not surprised politicians get the idea america wants to get green because that's all we hear about at the meetings. that is because the rest of us are sitting at home. so i think people need to be more active. >> steve, do you believe -- >> excuse me, could we have a little order? could we get a microphone to this individual who's calling to introduce herself and what organization she is with. >> yes, i represent the polar bears. [laughter] thank you. thank you very much. i was wondering what you like to see your children experience alaska and the polar bears and their natural habitat?

>> well, you seem to be quite well. you're down here and it's 50 degrees. i know it's a lot colder in the polar regions. polar bear populations are expanding and have been for some time now. claims that polar bears are in danger based on computer model extrapolation that have no basis and reality. you know, first off the key issue, remember with global warming the key issue as do him any emissions of co2 dr. global climate? if the answer is no, if the answer is no what is happening in the arctic may be unfortunate and i not seeing it is in the case of polar bears. i don't think it is. but if what is happening in the arctic is bad for the planet and has nothing to do with co2, so regulating co2 will accomplish nothing except distracting people from what may be the real issue. >> all right, let's see. we have a question over here. can we have a microphone on this side?

>> thank you for answering. >> you're quite welcome. >> dr. charles from charlottesville virginia. it is a great help to a person such as myself trying to further the message in a very safe hostile environment as it were. the question is that you have identified corrine as the new red and i would like to know what kept you, since you have the right colors, calling green the new black. those black represent the fascist and activities of the 20's and 30's government and big business forcing things on the populace? you've got the match right there. >> yeah, i guess people often try -- they try to draw the line between communists and fascists and for me it's government totalitarianism.

most people recognize red versus black, so i mean i appreciate the point. i think all these things need to be avoided. we don't want to live a totalitarian state but that's where the greens are driving. we believe that is the direction, but i am for stand when you're singing. many people think with big business teams up with a government and we get a sort of fascism. i guess you're right, that's a fine political point but the bottom line is always totalitarianism, which i'm against and i think "green hell" is reminding us about. sorry. [laughter] >> sunshine press. you said that everybody is for the environment and nobody is for pollution. >> right. >> i wonder if you could tell what principles can be used to draw the line between environmental protection and regulation and pollution regulation that is acceptable and that which you find to be

inappropriate? >> well, you know, it's the old story where the first 80% requires 20% of the cost with the last 20% takes 80% of the cost. we've been regulating or reducing pollution for about 40 years and we've taken care of most, the vast majority, the air and water is much cleaner than 40 years ago. those were the easy things to do. now we are down to much lower level of -- much lower levels of pollution. i don't even recall that pollution and the question is how much money is it worth to clean that up. now i will just say to you, and you can find this in the new times, so you don't have to take it from me -- 40 years ago before the clean air act was enacted there was no scientific data showing that air quality in the united states, even and new york city, was a, you know, some general public health problem. 40 years ago.

today, there is much cleaner than it was then. so i don't buy this notion at all that the environment presents a public health threat to anybody. there's nothing in the environment causing cancer. it doesn't cause asthma in children. our water is clean. we are down to the point we have got to think about whether the costs are worth the benefits of more environmental protection and that's not to say there aren't regulations that won't be justified in the future. but it's not what i see right now. what i see is these huge costs being posed on us as a society, not just businesses, but on us as a society and we are not getting anything. >> what i asked is if you have any principles that would help where the line would be drawn? >> there are no principles. we have a government -- when i started in the business the hot

topic was risk assessment and risk management and agencies were in power to do risk assessment was a analysis of the issue and risk management, figuring out, you know, do you really need a solution. is the solution going to produce benefits with the cost? so we do have this -- you know, there is no -- that's the basic paradigm. there's no magic, you know, answer or anything like that. it's a process people have to go through. now, unfortunately the process is really easy for environmentalists to gain because there are no discernible risks from a lot of what's going on in the environment were virtually everything i have ever seen. there is no discernible risk so everything is very hypothetical. people worried about chemicals, well, we are worried about chemicals not because there is evidence in humans but because we have poisoned rats with a dose that is, you know, the dose next to killing them, we've given them an maximum dose and

they've gotten sick and we go they've got cancer. well, there's cancer in this chemical. well, there's no real world evidence of that. so yeah, there is a process to resolve the issue is called risk assessment, risk management. does it work well? it all depends whether the process is undertaken in good faith and all too often it is not. >> okay. we have one right here in the center. >> my name is james henry. i just want -- all this talk of pseudoscience being used as a foundation of tyrannical policies brings a lot of memories of the third reich and things like that and i want to ask you why you think the climate reason use of pseudoscience often goes well together with authoritarian policies. >> you know, i would say that, you know, if you can get out there in front with the junk

science and scare and get the media to carry your message and you can get otherwise respectable people to carry your message you're going to have a good chance advancing. why people fall for it, i don't know. why is missouri the only show me state? everyone else seems to fall for this stuff. or maybe -- this is a very complex issue and a great question. i don't know why people fall for it. we hear about americans who believe global warming is happening. how can that be? this only a handful of people who know what the scientific data says. are you forming your opinions because when you read in "the new york times"? you're going to be wrong. you're cui to be misinformed. there's a lot more to it. and a poll asking how you feel -- it's a hard question and i think a lot of times you've got to sort of, you know, between having a government that's for

it, big businesses, mainstream media is for something they can create the impression people are for it and concerned about it but i don't think that's the case at all. >> okay. to we have one more? all righty, right here just on the other side. >> hello, my name is john ferry. i am an architect and i deal with two organizations. and what happens here is that you used the term green which to me is green alternatives and energy efficiency. there are two organizations that pretty much are on the forefront for this and that is the united states green building council and green building initiative and they came up with a program which is called lead, which is leadership and energy and environmental design. the green building institute initiative house what they call green load system and scenes of the towns and counties in the united states are creating

passion for sustainability and they are all starting to try to institute certain levels of those programs. a silver certification level, gold certification level, which establishes certain efficiency ratings and alternatives. are they -- do you consider them alarmists or just being responsible? >> i consider them profiteers. they are no different poll different than the solar industry, the wind industry. they are seeking government requirements to force people to build to their standards. you know, i don't, if i was a building owner or a homeowner building a home, i don't need to be incentivized by the government to build an energy efficiency house. that should be incentive enough right there if it makes sense. and let me also say that the sort of blind drive towards efficiency i really don't understand at all. since the 1970's we will become

six or 7% efficiency because of technology. efficiency isn't that easy to come by. it is very elusive to try to build a national policy around it is crazy. you know, we have a world full of energy. let's get more -- let's build more power plants. let's build more transparent lines. toshiba has a wonderful piece of technology. it's, you know, a little nuclear power plant, probably, you know, half the size of this room that can be buried underground and provide power for buildings. we don't need to go into this creasy efficiency. the last time we did decrease the efficiency thing in the 70's we sealed up buildings so tight the epa got sick building syndrome. so, you know, there's lots of unintended consequences from lurching to green and i caution everybody when you think about this what is it we are after? >> a follow-up. >> i don't need to introduce myself again. [laughter]

once these things are instituted, the governments say they have their capital plan for the next year and they have certain dollars they put aside for the utility we are going to spend and everything, so if they start getting savings what i'm starting to see is the savings doesn't go back to any kind of energy type of program. it just gets dumped into the general fund and who knows where they go. so it is a dollar thing. >> and i've got a follow-up for you. this is on greenhellblog.com. recently a 244 unit new york co-op was considering getting solar panels for their building, okay? but the cost was daunting. $400,000 for the panels and but take more than ten years to recoup the cost and the board was like can't do this. and someone said you know, we can get city, state and federal tax credits for these panels and you know what, they did. it reduced the cost from $400,000 to $10,000.

okay? and this is in "the new york times." so, american tax payers are paying for this. this doesn't make any sense. what are we doing? this is barack upon's idea of a jump-start in the economy. this is crazy. we've got to stop this. by my book. [laughter] >> i've got one more question. did ica leedy over here with her hand up? this will be the last question of the day. >> my name is sarah cullom, and her with a center of american progress and i have a question. you're accusing liberals and environmentalists of profiteering using environmental policies to advance their own agenda but i and standiford worked for a variety of companies that pay your bills and exxonmobil in the pastore into helping advance their agenda and how is your so-called scientific information any more credible? >> that's a great spin you put on that. you take some contributions to

organizations. i've been affiliated with and spin it into this, you know, advocacy for higher and i think that's nothing but skin. let's look at al gore who stands to make $2 billion from all this energy stuff. he testifies in congress. not only -- about global warming -- not only does he not disclose he stands to make billions of dollars. not a single senator asks him about it. so, when you guys -- when you guys start asking questions about doing some introspection, looking at your own motivations, then you start throwing stones at other people. >> platts thank steve milloy for being here. thank you very much, steve. [applause] you can -- you can purchase a copy of "green hell" outside here at a very special rate for the folks here today. and i think it's wonderful that we've been able to offer this opportunity for steve not only to speak to the group today, but

to all of those watching on television and across the internet. thank you very much for joining today. thank you folks, too. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] >> steve milloy is a columnist for cox new stockholm, the co-director of the free enterprise project at the national center for public policy research and founder and publisher of junkscience.com.

for more information, visit to junkscience.com. bookexpo american new york city, 2,009. we are here with john sherer, publisher at basic books. what does a publisher do? >> the publisher is a title i have. i ron the imprint of basic books suite of editorial, marketing, publicity, design and i end up making the final decisions on things. i say a lot of yes or no all day long. >> what do you say yes or no to? >> weather we acquire a book, how much we pay for it, how much resource we put into promoting it, the final call on which jacket, a lot of i like this jacket over that one, with the price will be, how many we should print. a bunch of small decisions adds up to big decisions but a bunch of small ones along the way. >> how long have you been in books and where did you come from before basic?

did you always want to be a publisher? >> i serendipitously from the book business. i ran a bookstore in washington for ten years and finally decided i enjoyed the book business so much wanted to do something other than retail. publishing was the obvious choice. you're going to beat me here, i think this might be almost 20 years of bookexpo, aba's as the use to be called. >> let's talk about some of the books you said yes or no to, decisions on i should say. rick steve, the travel memoir from pbs, right? >> a lot of people know rick steves because he set up your up through the back door as his travel series and has some of the best on the market but he's also politically active and the travel guide isn't appropriate to have a lot of political activism because people want to make their decisions how they are going to travel but this is a long essay on the fact that when you travel you actually are committing a political act and that when you travel you should -- that you should -- you should

consider where you're going and how you behave when you're in a place, and that americans need to basically travel better and that you can learn as much from the culture that you're going to visit and then you see the cover has this suitcase on it, and the idea is that when you come back from a place you should bring back as much of that place as possible. make america a more interesting place and make you a more interesting individual so it is a political essay on travel. >> getting back to the idea you being a publisher. the cover, did you have anything to do with that or how did that come about? >> that cover was actually originated by one of the marketing people at perseus. we struggled because we knew it couldn't look like a travel guide, it couldn't have a single destination but we didn't want it to seem too overtly political. we wanted it accessible, a little bit on, a little old fashioned so that's actually a suitcase rick steves owned and we put stickers on it. it's not a stock photo. we put it together and designed around it and i like the way.

it's clean but it's fun and the message gets across clearly. specs when the viewers are at the bookstore they know a lot of thought it puts into these covers. >> we agonize. covers are when of the toughest things we do because everyone has a legitimate opinion about what works as a cover and sometimes when doing is filtering through the many legends and voices and trying to pick the one i think is going to help in the long run. >> i should out all the books we are talking about on the table are out right now. these or spring titles. >> this show is usually to talk about fall books but we also bring spring books that just landed and that just published last month. >> to books on the economy. i guess you'd say to divergent takes? >> certainly to different takes. robert friend to simplify things is i would say liberal economist and writes for "the new york times" and teaches at cornell and he has done this economic, this is the second book he's done for us and it's a collection of pieces about how to think about the current

crisis through economic terms. he hopes people will come up with the vocabulary to help understand all of the kind of garbage that you hear and the news, to sort through it. he has a lot of prescriptive solutions as well. in all the other side you have tom sowell at the institution in california, very widely respected. both of them are enormously respected and weep approached professor sowell and said we would like you to read a book what happened on the economy and he said without a doubt i need to write about housing crisis because in his opinion the housing crisis is what precipitated the entire economic boom and bust. >> so we have travel, the economy, and in this book by chris mooney about science america. >> he wrote a book couple of years ago called the war on science which was a bestseller. now he's moved to the idea we problem of scientific literacy in this country and i think the argument he was making that when

you read the front page of, you know, a daily paper and look at the problems the country faces, an enormous number of them are scientific problems or i should say problems at have scientific solutions and one of the things we are struggling with in the country is we don't have the capacity or infrastructure to build scientists who can help solve these problems. so this is an argument saying that we need to increase the scientific literacy in this country and that includes obvious things like a bridge education system but also means scientists have to do a better job of talking about scientific solutions and accessible terms for the public. >> now dimension that this is the convention where people come out and talk about their fall books, fall being the biggest season from the industry when you release your largest titles. >> that's right. the consumers sort of come out to spend for the holidays is the assumption. when i was and retail the assumption is you did about one-fourth of your business in november and december. i don't know whether that number

still takes publishers do tend to push their biggest books, that's when a lot of gift books and listed books come out. for us because basic doesn't to illustrate books and gift books per say we do a lot of history and science and psychology so we tend to put the most as we like to say gifty at that time of year. so those are two that i wanted -- >> i should add john is holding a catalog here. this is something that book buyers, librarians, media, this is where you put together so that they know what is coming out and you can essentially pitch them on the books. >> publishers think in terms of seasonal list. most publishers have to retreat lists are year and i don't know if you can read their but this is the fall list and what we do is just descriptive copy for every book. it has a bio of the author and jackets and just sometimes the quotes were examples from the book. and i think summarized that perfectly. the main tools for booksellers

but publicist's use it for media. we use it for authors and agents so they can see what individual publishers are doing. and, you know, we have to plan books into the marketplace six, nine months ahead of time and so you have to have something that's sort of polished like this so that the retailers and the publicity folks can see what the final book will look like because some of these books haven't been finished so we don't have a finished book to show. >> what's talk about two of those. >> eugene rogan is at st. antony's college and oxford era and he's taken an interesting approach. he chose to start the history in the 1500's, and his concept there was that that was when the ottomans first conquered the arable land and one of the defining characteristics of air and history is they frequently have been an occupied ethnic group, and so he decided that was the key -- rather than start with, say mohammed, which is

where other histories have started, that this was the defining moment and what he would argue is that the arabs value history in ways that those of us in the west don't think about. first of all, the history is deeper and richer. for most of their history they were a dominant power and i think one of the things that's going on in the middle east now is arabs are seen that the west sort of looks down on them and that is something very inconsistent with history. so it's important to understand era of history if you want to unravel what happening in the land today. >> i know he lives in oxford england. would you bring him to the united states to talk about the book? >> we will bring him -- it's interesting because history is a little tough to get media because the media is obsessed with what is in the news and even though i just tried to make the argument why this is relevant and the news that will be a little bit of a battle when we try to pitch it. books about the economic situation it's easier to to work and get media but this is an

important book we thought we would bring him over and we will get media for that. >> and the second book for the fall you wanted to talk about? >> this is seth lipsky nine conservative circles and writes regularly for "the wall street journal" and you know, he decided that he -- americans don't know enough about the american constitution and you can buy the constitution for a dollar. they are available. it's a pretty short book. but what he decided is people don't read the constitution because they don't understand the concept. so his idea is to give an annotated constitutions of the book itself is the full text of the constitution but for each amendment an article he goes back and looks at the historical context into which the amendment or the article was written. he looks at the base it's been applied for history and in terms of how the court has applied it. i wish i had this book right now because he would be quick to comment because we are all talking about the court's interpretation of the constitution so since we know

there will be inevitably another supreme court justice to be nominated and approved, we will be ready to roll this out, but seth lipsky is a well-known conservative journalist and we are excited about this. it's his first book and we think it's going to get a lot of attention. >> john sherer, former bookseller, current publisher basic books. >> thank you, cleve. >> the this summer book tv is asking what are you reading. >> this summer i plan on reading several books, a couple of them i need to finish right now, one of them is on william wilberforce. he was a great man in history responsible for eliminating the slave trade in great britain and he's one of my political heroes in life. the abolitionist in america look to wilberforce and his example of how to get rid of slavery in

the united states, so almost anything i can read about wilberforce i tried to get my hands on and the book and in the middle of right now i want to finish this summer and it's a tremendous book about his life and how he brought people together to eliminate the slave trade in great britain. another book i'm going to read this summer is called the longest day. it's about the terribly long day when we invaded europe at normandy that eventually led to the end of world war ii, and it's a friend of mine recommended to me and says it's just an amazing book so i'm very excited about reading that. some recent books i read that i would recommend to people, one written by a navy seal about his experience is in afghanistan, and it's called loan survivor, and he is the lone survivor and it's one of the more remarkable