The Denial of Global Warming, Part 4 - The Most Powerful Promoter of Denialism: ALEC

The Center for Media and Democracy describes the American Legislative Exchange Council ( ALEC):

“ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through the secretive meetings of the American Legislative Exchange Council, corporate lobbyists and state legislators vote as equals on ‘model bills’ to change our rights that often benefit the corporations’ bottom line at public expense. ALEC is a pay-to-play operation where corporations buy a seat and a vote on ‘task forces’ to advance their legislative wish lists and can get a tax break for donations, effectively passing these lobbying costs on to taxpayers.

“Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations.

“Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills.

“ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law.”

Tom Hamburger, writing in the Washington Post in December 2014:

“Oil, gas and coal interests that spent millions to help elect Republicans this year are moving to take advantage of expanded GOP power in Washington and state capitals to thwart Obama administration environmental rules.

“Industry lobbyists made their pitch in private meetings last week with dozens of state legislators at a summit of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an industry-financed conservative state policy group.

“The lobbyists and legislators considered several model bills to be introduced across the country next year, designed to give states more power to block or delay new Obama administration environmental standards, including new limits on power-plant emissions.

“Meanwhile, underscoring the extent to which fossil-fuel industry allies will pressure Republicans seen as squishy on key issues, the group Americans for Prosperity began an advertising campaign in two dozen House districts after the November elections, pressing GOP lawmakers to oppose tax breaks for wind-energy firms. The organization was founded and funded in part by billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch.

“Two dozen chief executives of national environmental groups met last week in the Washington offices of Friends of the Earth to talk about how to respond to what participants called “the assault” by fossil-fuel industry allies. The groups plan to solicit contributions from major liberal donors to support a new organization to counter the industry’s growing effectiveness on the state level.

“The advocacy groups worry about the role played by ALEC, which has a successful track record of designing conservative legislation on issues such as guns, criminal justice and voting that has won widespread passage in state capitals.

“If enacted by states, ALEC’s measures targeting the EPA could be used to delay the federal rule-making process, fuel lawsuits and build public opposition to an environmental movement that once had bipartisan support, environmental advocates say. If the industry could delay implementation of the carbon regulations until after Obama leaves office, a Republican president could reverse the limits.

“Aliya Haq, a climate change specialist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the ALEC proposals would “handcuff” states just as they would be required to comply with new federal standards. She said that “ALEC and their cronies would love to see as much delay as possible.

“The industry’s approach was evident at last week’s ALEC meeting, where officials of fossil-fuel firms such as Koch Industries and Peabody Energy mixed with lawmakers and ALEC organizers to discuss and sometimes edit proposed model bills.

“The Post was granted rare access to some parts of the meeting, which was attended by more than 400 people, including industry representatives and state officials from across the country. Multiple participants in the private sessions that focused on environmental and energy policy provided accounts of what happened. In one closed-door meeting, for instance, Sarah Magruder Lyle, a former Energy Department official who is now a vice president at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers association, made the case for a proposal that would scale back Obama administration rules on ozone. Her argument, a spokesman for her trade group said, was that the ozone rule was “threatening states’ economies while providing little benefit to the environment or to consumers.”

“A separate proposal debated by ALEC participants would give legislatures a role in setting state limits for carbon emissions, including the requirement of a ­cost-benefit analysis.

“Another proposed resolution would call for abolishing the EPA and replacing it with a committee of state officials. The idea was put aside after some corporate lobbyists cautioned that it could hurt ALEC’s credibility.

“Nevertheless, participants said, the anti-EPA feelings ran so deep at the meeting that an ALEC task force weighing the various proposals agreed to create a “working group” to further consider ways state legislatures could support replacing the federal agency.”

The topic of global warming and climate change is one of immense complexity, and is a source of intense emotional feelings. In attempting to better educate myself about the issues involved, I came to these conclusions:

• there is a nearly unanimous consensus among climate scientists that man-made global warming is real;

• the financial consequences of global warming are dire. The number of $1 billion dollar disastrous weather events is rising rapidly;

• climate scientists are uniquely qualified to generate, interpret, and present data concerning climate change and global warming;

• people with solid general scientific literacy, such as engineers, geologists, and physicists, may have an inflated perception of their understanding of climate science, and thus draw incorrect conclusions that conform to their ideological biases;

• information that increases understanding about the climate can also increase public acceptance of global warming, especially among conservatives;

• the climate change countermovement is vast, comprised of at least 91 important climate denial organizations in the U.S.  Funding, much in the form of “dark money” from conservatives, came from at least 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010;

• global warming denial is promoted by well-funded think tanks and organizations such as the State Policy Network, the Heartland Institute, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

It is evident that a well-organized campaign of disinformation has been successful in convincing some that global warming is a hoax. James Powell’s quote bears repeating:

“On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving… on that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren's future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.”

I earlier posed the question: What is the downside for the human race to at least start to do something about climate change? What (or who) could it hurt? I believe that I now have a better idea.

D. Norman

The Denial of Global Warming, Part 3 - Who Funds Denialism.

How do we account for such an overwhelming amount of commentary and purportedly expert opinion from people who deny the existence of what is generally accepted to be scientific fact. Are they the result of widespread citizenry outrage to what they consider to be an obvious attack on our freedoms? Where does the funding for such a well-organized campaign of disinformation come from? How have the plethora of countermovement organizations sprung up in such a relatively short time?

The formation of the Tea Party was at first thought to be a grass-roots phenomenon, brought about by a rising citizen outrage against bank bail-outs and President Obama’s efforts to lessen the effects of unaffordable mortgages. Soon it was discovered to be a “movement” supported and funded by Americans for Prosperity, founded by David Koch. There is evidence that much of the misinformation being passed around to deny global warming emanates from an impressive number of countermovement groups.

I found many articles that focused on one or a few of these groups, but the most comprehensive was published in PhysOrg on December 20, 2013:

“The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine public faith in climate science and block action by the U.S. government to regulate emissions. This countermovement involves a large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.”

The article describes a study conducted by Dr. Robert Brulle:

“Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel's College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

“Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the counter-movement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the counter-movement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money," or concealed funding.

The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding counter-movement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to counter-movement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.

“To uncover how the counter-movement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service. The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010.

“Key findings include:

•  Conservative foundations have bank-rolled denial. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.

•  Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.

•  Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change.

•  Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.”

Jane Mayer, writing in the New Yorker in November 2013:

“In every state in the country, there is at least one ostensibly independent ‘free-market’ think tank that is part of something called the State Policy Network— there are sixty-four in all, ranging from the Pelican Institute, in Louisiana, to the Freedom Foundation, in Washington State. According to a new investigative report by the Center for Media and Democracy, a liberal watchdog group, however, the think tanks are less free actors than a coördinated collection of corporate front groups—branch stores, so to speak—funded and steered by cash from undisclosed conservative and corporate players. Although the think tanks have largely operated under the radar, the cumulative enterprise is impressively large, according to the report. In 2011, the network funneled seventy-nine million dollars into promoting conservative policies at the state level.

“… S.P.N.’s catalogue displays visions of state policy projects that align with the group’s agenda. That agenda includes opposing President Obama’s health-care program and climate-change regulations, reducing union protections and minimum wages, cutting taxes and business regulations, tightening voting restrictions, and privatizing education.

“The S.P.N. operates as a tax-exempt nonprofit, allowing it to take tax-deductible contributions that it does not have to publicly disclose. According to the study by the Center for Media and Democracy, the donations include more than a million dollars run through the organizations DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, which serve to erase the donors’ names, operating, as Mother Jones put it, like a ‘dark-money ATM for the conservative movement.’

“Numerous wealthy conservative individuals and foundations pass money through those two groups. In addition, according to the Center for Media and Democracy study, corporate donors to the S.P.N. have included many of America’s largest companies, such as Facebook, Microsoft, A.T. & T., Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Philip Morris and Altria Client Services (both subsidiaries of Altria), GlaxoSmithKline, Kraft, and funds from various entities linked to the fossil-fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch. Melissa Cohlmia, the director of corporate communication for Koch Companies Public Sector LLC, told me, ‘We think State Policy Network is a worthy organization that is focused on creating more opportunity for everyone, thereby making people’s lives better.’

“Tracie Sharp, the president of the S.P.N., …acknowledged privately to the members that the organization’s often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. ‘The grants are driven by donor intent,’ she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, ‘the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.’ She said that the donors also sometimes determined in which states their money would be spent.”

According to Greenpeace USA,

“Billionaire oilman David Koch used to joke that Koch Industries was "the biggest company you've never heard of." Now the shroud of secrecy has thankfully been lifted, revealing the $67 million that he and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming, most of which are part of the State Policy Network.

“From 1997 to 2011, the Kochs funneled over $67 million to organizations who are working in lockstep with the Kochs' agenda while presenting themselves as experts. Some top recipients of Koch money include the American Council on Science and Health, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Heartland Institute, and the State Policy Network.

In Part 4, I will discuss the most effective organization furthering global warming denial.

D. Norman

The Denial of Global Warming, Part 2 - The Importance of Global Warming Information

In 2013, there were 10,885 published, peer-reviewed articles that researched anthropogenic, or man-made, climate change. Only two argued that the phenomenon wasn't real, according to James Powell who compiled the data.

So how important is information about global warming? On what basis do we believe the people (experts?) that disseminate it? How do we decide whom to believe?

The treatment of this was, I believe, done best by Dana Nuccitelli, writing in The Guardian in August 2014:

“While there’s a 97% consensus among climate science experts and their research that humans are causing climate change, only about 67% of Americans believe global warming is even happening, including 25% of Tea Party members and 61% of other Republicans. Only about half of Americans realize that humans are causing global warming.

“Social scientists have been investigating this disconnect between the evidence and expert consensus, and public opinion. Is it caused by information deficit and misinformation surplus, political and ideological biases, or some combination of these factors?

“There’s one school of thought among social scientists that information just doesn’t matter – in fact, it might even be polarizing. In essence, liberals feel as though they’re on Team ‘global warming is a problem caused by humans’ while conservatives identify with Team ‘no it’s not.’ Some social scientists believe this cultural identity is so strong that scientific evidence, facts, and information can’t break through it. A 2012 study led by Yale’s Dan Kahan seemed to support this idea, finding that conservatives who are more scientifically literate are less worried about global warming.

“A new paper led by Sophie Guy, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, looks at climate-specific knowledge and ideology. They… asked participants, ‘How much do you feel you know about climate change?,’  about their climate-related beliefs, and their ideology. The authors concluded, ‘...[climate] knowledge dampened the negative influence of individualist ideology on belief in climate change. Individualists favor small government and self-sufficiency, in line with the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Individualists were less likely than communitarians (those who think interdependence is an important part of society, i.e. “it takes a village”) to believe that climate change is happening. However, individualists with high climate-specific knowledge were significantly more likely to accept the climate is changing than those with low climate knowledge.’

“In another interesting result, perceived climate knowledge made hierarchists (those who favor distinct socioeconomic classes – closely related to the ‘religious right’ in the USA) more likely to reject that humans are causing global warming. This may explain Kahan’s results, because those who have solid general scientific literacy may have an inflated perception of their understanding of climate science. 

“Thus, scientifically literate hierarchists may be more likely to let their biases influence their opinions on the causes of global warming because they have an inflated perception of their understanding the underlying science. This may also explain why we so frequently hear from engineers, geologists, and physicists who are skeptical of human-caused global warming despite lacking expertise in climate science. Because of their scientific backgrounds, they may have an inflated sense of their understanding about climate science, and thus draw incorrect conclusions that conform to their ideological biases.

“There are two pieces of good news in this new study indicating that information does make a difference and climate education isn’t a lost cause. Across the participants as a whole, ‘People who were knowledgeable about climate change believed more strongly that it is happening, that it is being caused by human activities, and that it has negative consequences than those with less knowledge.’

“Second, conservatives of a libertarian flavor were more likely to accept that global warming is happening when they had a better understanding of the climate. This indicates that some conservatives are persuadable; that information, evidence, and facts can potentially break through their ideological filter.

“There’s no question that ideological biases play a big role in rejection of global warming. However, the results of this study indicate that for a majority of the public, including some conservatives, information that increases understanding about the climate can also increase public acceptance of global warming.”

So is it actually possible for information to sway the people who traditionally are skeptics- the Republicans? I was pleasantly surprised to read this from Anthony Adragna, writing in Bloomberg BNA in August 2014:

“In stark contrast to their party's public stance on Capitol Hill, many Republicans privately acknowledge the scientific consensus that human activity is at least partially responsible for climate change and recognize the need to address the problem. However, they see little political benefit to speaking out on the issue, since congressional action is probably years away, according to former congressmen, former congressional aides and other sources.

“In 2008, while running for president against Obama, [John] McCain featured a market-based, emissions cap-and-trade system as one of the key proposals in his campaign. ‘Global warming presents a test of foresight, of political courage, and of the unselfish concern that one generation owes to the next,’ McCain said in a May 12, 2008, speech in Portland while unveiling his plan for addressing climate change. ‘We need to think straight about the dangers ahead and to meet the problem with all the resources of human ingenuity at our disposal.’

“‘Climate change needs to be in the mix of all of our other discussions,’ former Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), who represented his Ohio district from 1995 through 2013 in the House and is now president of McDonald Hopkins Government Strategies, told Bloomberg BNA. ‘I do think [that] privately—and some not so privately—Republicans are coming to the point where this has been an issue that's been pretty much settled with regard to the science. A lot of it has to do with people calming down and saying let's have a conversation.’

“Over the last several months, a flurry of former Republican officials have called for quick action to address the effects of climate change. Four former administrators of the EPA, all of whom served Republican presidents, told a Senate subcommittee in late June that Republican senators should abandon efforts to block regulations on greenhouse gases and should support action on climate change.

“Separately, high-level Republicans such as former Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine); Henry Paulson, treasury secretary during the administration of President George W. Bush; and George Shultz, secretary of state during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, warned that climate change could cause hundreds of billions of dollars in economic losses by the end of this century without significant action.

“Many Republicans have elected not to engage in the debate on climate change to avoid attracting a primary challenge and potentially losing their seat. One frequently cited example to justify the concern is that of former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), who lost a primary challenge in 2010 after saying climate change is real and calling for a carbon tax. Inglis, now executive director of the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, is one of a small group of Republicans who are pushing their party to actively engage on the issue, and he continues to advocate for a carbon tax.

In Part 3, I will cover who funds global warming denial.

D. Norman

The Denial of Global Warming, Part 1: The Dangers of Global Warming

Like John Boehner, I cannot claim to be an expert on climate science. But I strongly feel the great danger in the denial of global warming. I agree with James Powell, the MIT-trained scientist and former university professor, who states “On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving… on that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren's future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.”

I care as well about the world in which my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will live. I often wonder: what is the downside for the human race to at least start to do something. What (or who) could it hurt? I remember how it was before air pollution began to be seriously addressed in California. Driving behind cars that weren’t equipped with catalytic converters and smelling that stinky exhaust, or walking out of the gym and not being even able to see across the street due to the smog.

Acknowledging that I am not an expert, I feel that my contribution to the conversation can be to research and provide quotes from the many articles and sources I have read. My aim is not to change the minds of people who call climate change or global warming a “hoax”. I am not naive. I know that reading this commentary is not likely to change their thinking. They will no doubt take issue with the articles and sources cited. They will point out that the sources and authors have a liberal bias. To that I would respond- what right-wing publications are going to take issue with global warming denialism? As I wrote in a previous commentary, facts are important and not partisan.

The subject is complex, therefore my commentary is long, and will be presented in four parts. I hope that the reader finds them to be useful.

What are the dangers inherent in global warming?

In researching the literature, I found that there were countless articles describing the effects of global warming. Rather that quote from many of them, I looked for one that was written fairly recently, and had as its emphasis the economic consequences. 

Frederick Reese, in MintPress News in May 2014 wrote:

“Half of the United States is suffering through drought conditions — including all of California, which saw huge swaths of the San Diego area swept by raging wildfires this month. In the Midwest, major rainstorms and tornadoes inundated the Mississippi floodplain for days, causing millions of dollars in damage. In Baltimore, hurricane-intensity rain contributed to the collapse of a city street.

“It is the consensus of the scientific community that the Earth is sick. According to the National Climate Assessment, the world is currently experiencing the effects of climate change, or the shifting of the planet’s climate zones due to environmental factors.

“Carbon reflects heat, preventing infrared radiation from the sun from escaping back into space. With more than 400 parts per million of carbon-bearing gases in the air and with more than 80,000 chemicals having been released by man into the atmosphere, the mean temperature in the United States has risen between 1.3 and 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the end of the 19th century. It will likely rise another 2 to 4 degrees in the next 20 years, according to the report.

“This represents a major financial problem. As illustrated by data from the National Climatic Data Center, the number of ‘billion-dollar disasters’ — weather events that caused over $1 billion in real and personal property damage — spiked after 2004. There were seven ‘billion-dollar disasters’ in 2013 and 11 in 2012, compared to two in 2001 and just one in 2000.

“In light of such potential financial peril for both individuals and businesses, it’s hard to see how taking precautions toward mitigating the current severe weather patterns could be a partisan issue.

“In April 2013, Democratic Illinois Governor Pat Quinn declared a state of emergency for the state after a major deluge swamped most of Chicago. ‘After several days of rain, an overnight deluge overwhelmed Chicago’s underground labyrinth of aging sewers and giant tunnelsThursday, forcing a noxious mix of sewage and storm water into local waterways and Lake Michigan,’ the Chicago Tribune reported on April 19. The rainfall was so severe that many residents were forced to evacuate their homes, and the only reliable means of transportation for several days was a boat.

“In response to this, Farmers Insurance — on behalf of itself and other insurance companies and affected customers — has filed a suit against the city of Chicago and municipalities throughout Cook County for their failure to properly prepare for such weather eventualities in light of foreknowledge that such climate change-empowered storms may be possible. Farmers alleges that the city knew that its drainage systems were inadequate to handle a major infusion of floodwater, but did nothing to alleviate the situation. ‘During the past 40 years, climate change in Cook County has caused rains to be of greater volume, greater intensity and greater duration than pre-1970 rainfall history evidenced,” the class-action lawsuit alleges, citing Chicago’s 2008 Climate Action Plan, which acknowledges the link between climate change and increased rainfall.

“In terms of economic and ecological impacts, the effects of climate change are relatively minor in the short term and difficult to differentiate from normal climate fluctuations. However, the severity of the effects of climate change could escalate in a relatively short amount of time. In a recent report, the Union of Concerned Scientists forecast that many of the nation’s landmarks — including the Kennedy Space Center, Ellis Island, Jamestown Island and Cape Hatteras — may be lost under water by 2100 unless significant modifications are made to stem the effects of climate change.

“Ultimately, comprehensive efforts to protect from climate change may not come until it is too late. This may not be the result of greedy corporations or uneducated voters or compromised politicians, though — it could simply be because the world is run by humans. 

“Lincoln Mitchell, a human rights adviser to Columbia University, wrote in a blog post for the Huffington Post, ‘climate change was not solely caused by evil polluters, but by a species that, in large part, has for centuries been deeply committed to making, buying and selling things. For much of the time we did those things, nobody thought about long-term environmental impact.’”

“Meanwhile, there are enough scientists on the fringe of the scientific community alleging that the rise in greenhouse gas emissions do not present an immediate threat and that the scientific models used by the scientific community to justify climate change are fundamentally flawed, so those seeking to justify their denial of climate change have apt sources to cite.”

In Part 2, I will cover the importance of global warming information.

D. Norman

Facts vs. Opinions in Citizen Journalism

The Amador Community News website has been a wonderful resource for me, providing useful information about the local area and activities that would not be available elsewhere.

In addition, it provides an opportunity for expression such as blogs. I have read many of the commentaries that have been published in the ACN. They are examples of citizen journalism written by concerned and civic-minded people. I have read them with interest, seeking to be informed about local issues. However, I have found many of them to be full of hyperbole, offering opinions as though they were facts. They seem to be aimed at readers who happen to believe the same way, i.e. “preaching to the choir”. The quote by Daniel Patrick Moynihan says it all: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts”.

Facts are not partisan. It is difficult to live by that axiom, because articles may include facts that run counter to a reader’s long-held beliefs. They may damage the credibility of people that have been held in high regard. But truth is important.

I believe that the opportunity provided to citizen journalists by the ACN comes with the responsibility to point out what is being presented as fact and what is instead opinion. As obvious as it might seem, a review of their definitions is warranted. I found the following in researching the literature:

• A fact is something that has actually occurred, or is the case, is verifiable, and synonymous with truth.

• An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be objectively proven to have occurred. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact.

• An argument is an opinion that may be supported by facts, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analyzing the supporting arguments.

Going online to present an argument for or against something or someone is important and protected expression. The important thing: is it a sound argument? Is it a valid argument whose conclusion follows from its premise(s), and the premise(s) of the argument are true?

Opinions that are the result of emotion or interpretation of facts can be typical of citizen journalism. The writer may be basing them upon input received from less than reliable sources that are aimed at an audience only interested in having their prejudices affirmed. Some sources have been accused of providing substantiation that turns out to have been opinion pieces themselves. They are offering an argument for or against something that is not based on facts, but because they are citing a “source” they appear to be providing verification.

On September 30, 2010, First Amendment Day, the University of North Carolina published a post written by law professor William Marshall. Here is an excerpt:

“Our public discourse is wide open, robust, and virtually untamed in its use of language and modes of expression.  The advent of the internet has allowed even marginalized voices to reach out and find sympathetic audiences.  We have the resources, usually at our desk or laptops, to search for truth and gain knowledge about virtually any subject. This is the good news.

“The bad news is that even with all of this unfettered speech and information, we remain a remarkably uninformed society.”

For the reader of blogs, letters to the editor, and the other forms of citizen journalism, I believe that it is essential that a critical eye be cast on their content. Again, does the writer clearly state when he or she is expressing an opinion? If facts are presented, are they verifiable?

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government”.  And in contemporary times, educator John Erskine offered this quote: “Opinion is the exercise of the human will which helps us to make a decision without information.”

We shouldn’t shy away from being curious but instead take the time to investigate what we read. Rather than remain inside the bubble where we only read and hear what we agree with, dare to be truly informed.

D. Norman