Addressing institutional rot ⁠75%

By Bill Ponton⁠0%

7/16/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 46.9% saturation with 284 hits. Analysis detected 1,738 faulty-reasoning hits from 605 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (5,284 of 21,147 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.00% of the article peer group.

Over the last 60 years, the Left has undertaken a long march through our institutions in a bid to capture them politically. 
Its effort to weaponize these institutions to further its political aims and assault its opponents has been successful. 
It was even apparent twenty years ago when Climategate surfaced, embroiling Michael Mann, creator of the infamous hockey stick, in scandal. 
He received public scorn for his unethical behavior, uncovered in emails, but he managed to avoid professional censure from his university and remains an outspoken figure in climate science today. 
This happened because the Left had secured the levers of power in most of academia by then. 
The second Trump administration has purged government institutions and agencies under its control of political rot, comprised of individuals that previously felt הם insulated and unaccountable to the electorate. 
The tactic has been successful, so far, in ridding hindrances to the implementation of administration policy. 
Outside government, the situation has not improved. 
Professional societies that had previously avoided political matters have leadership that embraces climate change and DEI wholeheartedly. 
A case in point is the American Geophysical Union (AGU), an organization with the purpose of disseminating scientific information in the fields Earth and space sciences, and nothing highlights it more than the election of Brandon Jones as its president. 
The following is a statement expressing his vision of the future for AGU. 
A key feature of the strategic plan that excites me is the goal that focuses on partnerships. 
A necessary factor that will ensure the development and sustainability of equitable partnerships is the need for co-creative space that elevates community needs in learning, research designs, and implementation planning. 
The design of those spaces will serve to empower disproportionately impacted communities to have direct involvement in the regenerative efforts where science can be applied and where they can benefit and thrive. 
In thinking about these new spaces, we must advance beyond sustainability (which is a key step), but towards the restoration of the many interlocked natural and physical systems that make up the original infrastructure for viable communities. 
The democratization of the Earth and space sciences will require inclusive and equitable science innovation with an eye to ensuring that the 'fruits of science and technology are fully shared across all of America and among all Americans' - adapted from President Biden's 2021 letter to the incoming Office of Science and Technology Policy Director. 
Jones goes on for two more paragraphs, but I did not have the heart to abuse the reader any further with his writing. 
The passage is sufficient to convey the impression that Jones is a moron. 
Contrast Jones with Matthew Wielicki, the man that Trump has chosen to lead the U.S. 
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) with responsibility for publishing the National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated evaluation of the effects of climate change on the United States, released every four years. 
Matthew Wielicki is a geochemist and a climate skeptic. 
Unlike Jones, he is not susceptible to fainting spells brought on by climate hysteria. 
Here is what Wielicki has to say about attributing severe weather to climate change. 
His words are sensible, but vociferously objected to by those like Jones who have marinated in an environment in which one speaks in paragraphs that sound like DEI grant proposals. 
If only Jones were an anomaly, three-sigma off from the mean, but unfortunately, he is all too typical of those elevated to positions of leadership in both our public and private institutions. 
Lost with the rot is the importance that these institutions once had in furthering science and understanding of our world. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.3%Bill Ponton: 8.4%American Thinker: 10.4%Confirmation Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Bill Ponton: 6.2%American Thinker: 3.7%Availability Heuristic10.1%This article: 5.3%Bill Ponton: 4.2%American Thinker: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic5.3%This article: 3.5%Bill Ponton: 1.5%American Thinker: 1.3%Hindsight Bias3.5%This article: 2.6%Bill Ponton: 2.4%American Thinker: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias2.6%This article: 6.1%Bill Ponton: 6.5%American Thinker: 7.2%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.3%Bill Ponton: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 1.4%American Thinker: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Bill Ponton: 7.0%American Thinker: 2.6%Pessimism Bias8.6%This article: 23.1%Bill Ponton: 14.1%American Thinker: 13.0%Negativity Bias23.1%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 1.9%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 3.7%American Thinker: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Bill Ponton: 6.4%American Thinker: 3.9%In-Group Bias2.8%This article: 2.8%Bill Ponton: 10.8%American Thinker: 5.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.8%This article: 11.6%Bill Ponton: 3.0%American Thinker: 2.7%Halo Effect11.6%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Bill Ponton: 0.7%American Thinker: 1.3%Recency Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Bill Ponton: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias5.3%This article: 14.4%Bill Ponton: 8.6%American Thinker: 5.7%Ad Hominem14.4%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 2.4%American Thinker: 4.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.5%Bill Ponton: 1.2%American Thinker: 4.7%Appeal to Authority1.5%This article: 2.8%Bill Ponton: 2.9%American Thinker: 4.7%False Dilemma2.8%This article: 4.8%Bill Ponton: 3.3%American Thinker: 3.3%Slippery Slope4.8%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.3%Bill Ponton: 27.2%American Thinker: 16.9%Hasty Generalization20.3%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.5%Bill Ponton: 2.1%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon2.5%This article: 10.7%Bill Ponton: 9.3%American Thinker: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion10.7%This article: 3.0%Bill Ponton: 3.5%American Thinker: 2.7%Begging the Question3.0%This article: 2.8%Bill Ponton: 2.2%American Thinker: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.8%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.7%American Thinker: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.6%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.8%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.5%Bill Ponton: 5.8%American Thinker: 3.6%Anecdotal3.5%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.8%Bill Ponton: 1.9%American Thinker: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.8%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.8%Bill Ponton: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity3.8%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.1%Bill Ponton: 2.4%American Thinker: 3.1%Unattributed Quote7.1%This article: 2.3%Bill Ponton: 1.9%American Thinker: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 46.9%Bill Ponton: 32.0%American Thinker: 23.0%Biased Writer Voice46.9%This article: 16.4%Bill Ponton: 4.4%American Thinker: 5.8%Indoctrination16.4%This article: 0.0%Bill Ponton: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 29.1%Bill Ponton: 24.3%American Thinker: 14.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias29.1%This article: 15.7%Bill Ponton: 1.7%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.7%

605 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker28%attributed speech434writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageBrandon Jones • 17 words • 0.0% coverageBrandon Jones • 30 words • 100.0% coverageBrandon Jones • 32 words • 100.0% coverageBrandon Jones • 37 words • 100.0% coverageBrandon Jones • 55 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Brandon Jones

90%flagged-word coverage
171 attributed words100% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice-65.4 ptsWriter: 65.4%Brandon Jones: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+57.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brandon Jones: 57.9%57.9%Politically Right Leaning -40.6 ptsWriter: 40.6%Brandon Jones: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +22.9 ptsWriter: 9.2%Brandon Jones: 32.2%32.2%Unattributed Quote-9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%Brandon Jones: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Brandon Jones: 0.0%0.0%

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.