Dropping the ball

OK, a word on this.

I love J.T., and, in principle, I don't disagree with the spirit of the editorial.

The problem, though, is that the spirit of the editorial - that our current political climate is too poisoned by talking points and political posturing and, as a result, obscures and hinders real, honest debate - isn't relevant to the situation we're talking about here.

Rep. Paul Broun misrepresented a study, and he did so willingly in an attempt to mislead the public regarding a serious, ongoing policy discussion that he was a part of.

And that should be troubling, but, instead, it's an excuse for an opportunity to further cloud the discussion surrounding existing scientific research regarding cap-and-trade legislation.

Listen, I think Broun is nuts, but let's leave that aside for a minute.

This discussion isn't about Broun's political views, but rather his capacity to willfully distort the debate through the peddling of false information ... and, apparently, the inability of some folks to call him out on it.

The problem is the methodology used to determine the number utilized by Broun - as well as the number the editorial cites from the American Petroleum Institute (because there's an honest broker in this discussion) - is fundamentally flawed. It takes the statistical projections from the M.I.T. study and discounts essential variables that would drive the overall cost down (i.e. the impact of increased conservation, the role of the emissions market in raising funds, increased competition from other fuel sources, refunds from the government allocated on a sliding scale, etc.).

Or, put in layman's terms, Broun's number only assumes expenses, but ignores revenues.

This is an error on his part.

It's cherry-picking statistics from an existing analysis, and then using what reaffirms your argument while conveniently ignoring that which contrasts it.

It isn't a legitimate analysis that Broun and his House Republican colleagues conducted. It's not a scientific study put together to get to the heart of the debate.

Rather, they took the work done by someone else and literally changed it to satisfy their predetermined point of view.

Furthermore, scientists and researchers look for trends to be able to project the effectiveness of their hypothesis. If you recognize that Broun's number is a flawed, misrepresentation of a scientific study - and one that actually produced a number that is closer to $215 per household - and then evaluate the legitimate M.I.T. analysis with other studies in the field, you find that the numbers all parallel each other.

The National Black Chamber of Commerce, than, is on the high end of the spectrum, while others all have numbers that huddle around $111 to $250 per family. And these studies have been conducted by long-time, refutable entities such as academic institutions like M.I.T., as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office.

Assuming we grant some validity to the API's study, then we would be able to determine it was an outlyer that would deserve additional scrutiny.

So, after reviewing this data, the logical course of action would be to argue that Broun and his colleagues deliberately altered a scientific analysis on cap-and-trade legislation and willfully ignored contrary data in an attempt to scare folks into opposing it. However, the editorial embraces - again - a noble sentiment, but then proceeds to just futher muck things up.

It's striving to provide fair coverage for a legitimate policy debate, but in doing so gives too much credibility to the uncredible. It's the same type of logic that enables some folks to say ridiculously unfounded things like 'global warming is a hoax' and then - because a handful of discredited folks are willing to speak to every available media outlet about it - it becomes incorporated into the existing debate when it should not be.

And that's why this whole thing is particularly maddening. It isn't as if there aren't valid arguments on why conservatives might or might not have better policy proposals regarding combatting climate change (or health care or economic stimulus or what-have-you), it's that their leaders don't care in having that debate.

The problem, then, isn't the philosophy, but the advocacy.