Colorado Senators hold up appropriations package over NCAR’s future75%

By Caitlyn Kim0%

12/19/2025, 12:28:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Out-Group Homogeneity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 27.1% saturation with 122 hits. Analysis detected 1,126 faulty-reasoning hits from 451 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.7% and a BS Rank of 75% (5,595 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.40% of the article peer group.

Colorado Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper threw a wrench in Senate plans to start work on a government funding package before heading home for the holidays. 
The two Democrats put a hold on the so-called mini-bus package over the Trump Administration’s decision to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. 
“President Trump is attacking Colorado because we refuse to bend to his corrupt administration. 
His reckless decision to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research will have lasting, devastating impacts across the country,” Bennet and Hickenlooper said in a joint statement. 
Hickenlooper told The Hill that the hold is to ensure that funding for NCAR in the budget bill is “used to keep it open (and) we don’t cancel it.” 
In a social media post, Bennet, who is also running for governor, said “when Trump comes after Colorado, we don’t back down, we fight back.” 
In announcing the “break up” of NCAR, Russ Vought, director of the Office of Management, said it was “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country.” 
Many Colorado Democrats viewed the move to dismantle NCAR as retaliation over the state’s decision not to hand over or release former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who is currently serving a nine year state sentence. 
Vought also highlighted two other cuts specifically for Colorado  the scrapping of $109 million in environmental transportation grants and of $615 million in Department of Energy grant funding  on his social media right before the NCAR post. 
Democratic Rep. Joe Neguse told CPR News it was “clearly retaliatory action by the Trump administration connected to the state’s refusal to honor the lawless request by the Trump administration for the release of Tina Peters.” 
Neguse defended NCAR’s work, saying it is “nonpartisan in nature. 
It is fundamentally about science, climate adaptation, weather forecasting, and other matters that are critical to our nation's national security.” 
All week, Senate Republican leaders had been working to clear objections on their side to quick passage of the package that would fund the departments of Education, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Housing and Human and Development, Labor, and Interior. 
The hold puts a speed bump into plans for quick passage of the bipartisan spending package, something Leader John Thune acknowledged to reporters Thursday night. 
“I’m sure there’ll be some conversations about that over the next couple of weeks. Then we’ll figure out a path forward,” he told reporters. 
Without an agreement to move the package quickly, Thune will have to use up valuable floor time and even then, getting the necessary 60 votes to advance the bill is not guaranteed. 
Funding for most of the government runs out on January 30. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.0%Caitlyn Kim: 5.3%Colorado Public Radio: 0.4%Actor-Observer Bias16.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 2.9%Colorado Public Radio: 4.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 2.9%Colorado Public Radio: 6.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 16.0%Caitlyn Kim: 16.9%Colorado Public Radio: 5.7%Confirmation Bias16.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 24.6%Caitlyn Kim: 35.9%Colorado Public Radio: 26.7%Framing Effect24.6%This article: 16.0%Caitlyn Kim: 18.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error16.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 2.2%Colorado Public Radio: 5.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 1.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 16.6%Caitlyn Kim: 14.7%Colorado Public Radio: 7.6%In-Group Bias16.6%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 6.9%Colorado Public Radio: 4.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 24.2%Caitlyn Kim: 26.4%Colorado Public Radio: 19.5%Negativity Bias24.2%This article: 5.3%Caitlyn Kim: 3.5%Colorado Public Radio: 6.6%Optimism Bias5.3%This article: 17.5%Caitlyn Kim: 9.7%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias17.5%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 6.9%Colorado Public Radio: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Caitlyn Kim: 9.4%Colorado Public Radio: 4.6%Pessimism Bias13.1%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 2.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.8%Caitlyn Kim: 4.4%Colorado Public Radio: 4.9%Self-Serving Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 3.6%Colorado Public Radio: 3.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 17.5%Caitlyn Kim: 16.3%Colorado Public Radio: 1.7%Ad Hominem17.5%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 2.2%Colorado Public Radio: 11.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 27.1%Caitlyn Kim: 25.4%Colorado Public Radio: 13.0%Appeal to Emotion27.1%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.0%Caitlyn Kim: 10.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.8%Begging the Question8.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.1%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.5%Caitlyn Kim: 7.3%Colorado Public Radio: 1.0%Genetic Fallacy9.5%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.2%Caitlyn Kim: 0.7%Colorado Public Radio: 0.0%No True Scotsman2.2%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 16.0%Caitlyn Kim: 17.0%Colorado Public Radio: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.0%Caitlyn Kim: 7.5%Colorado Public Radio: 2.5%Slippery Slope6.0%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.6%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 6.4%Caitlyn Kim: 4.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.4%Straw Man6.4%This article: 0.0%Caitlyn Kim: 0.0%Colorado Public Radio: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%

451 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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