The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Sunday, January 21, 2007


If you accept bad information without critical evaluation and then use it to make important (and even not so important) decisions, you’re bound to come up with bad results. For example, the Bush administration accepted bad information about Iraq – not just the presence of WMDs, but also the judgment that post-War Iraq would be a calm and accepting place -- and made very bad decisions as a consequence.

On a societal level, decision makers –- the President, congress, local politicians and bureaucrats -- are supposed to assess the information that is presented to them critically and then act to make responsible decisions. That doesn’t happen very often. Instead, often whipped by a media-inspired frenzy that is driven by the MSM’s continuous attempt to encourage a state of fear, decision makers accept bad facts and junk science as reality and make bad decisions accordingly.

On January 18th, announced its top 10 junk science moments of 2006. Topping the list is Al Gore’s much applauded documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” In the movie, Gore uses half truths, distortions, and 100 year “models” to make a case for dramatic reductions in emissions. Just one example – Gore’s film claims that seas will rise by 20 feet over the next 100 years, resulting in the inundation of mach of the populated coast of the US. The WSJ reports:
The U.N. climate panel [certainly not a right wing organization] expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?

Or Gore’s claim that sea ice is shrinking at an alarming rate. Again from the WSJ:
He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but doesn't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts?

Why is this important? After all, all of us want to see a responsible energy policy and no one wants to pollute our environment.

The Left is very concerned about “social justice” and income equality for the world’s poor. Yet, they seem to discount the enormous cost associated with remedying a future that Gore’s junk science projects. A cost that will hurt poor nations much more that rich ones.
The U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

There are, of course, hundreds of examples of junk science that lead to bad public policy. With the singular exception of ABC’s John Stossel, virtually no MSM outlet chooses to question junk claims, particularly if the claim fits their political bias. That’s a bad thing for all of us.