California’s New Diesel Regulation Is All Pain for No Gain 56%

6/23/2009, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Burden of Proof as the most egregious example at 29.7% saturation with 47 hits. Analysis detected 510 faulty-reasoning hits from 158 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.3% and a BS Rank of 56% (9,740 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.50% of the article peer group.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) promulgated new, stricter regulations for diesel truck emissions, last December, that significantly reduce the amount of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) emissions allowed in the state. 
Diesel PM 2.5 is made up of fine particles of soot from diesel emissions that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, and is often blamed for premature deaths. 
However, California’s new regulation will do nothing to improve public health, while costing millions. 
California is the only state with such a diesel emissions reduction program, largely because the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency has never determined that diesel exhaust causes premature deaths. 
For example, the agency’s large, detailed study in 2002 failed to find that diesel exhaust causes premature deaths. 
As Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Dr. 
Henry Miller points out, the new regulations constitute an overreach by CARB—based on faulty science—that would drive business out of California. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 27.8%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias27.8%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.4%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic18.4%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 8.9%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion8.9%This article: 10.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias15.2%This article: 28.5%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias28.5%This article: 13.3%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.4%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.9%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority20.9%This article: 15.2%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma15.2%This article: 13.3%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope13.3%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.4%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization11.4%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.3%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion13.3%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 29.7%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof29.7%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.4%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal11.4%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 25.9%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)25.9%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 13.3%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading13.3%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 28.5%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice28.5%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

158 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker13%attributed speech137writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageHenry Miller • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Henry Miller

100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words100% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+82.5 ptsWriter: 17.5%Henry Miller: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.