California’s New Diesel Regulation Is All Pain for No Gain 55%

6/23/2009, 7:00:00 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 55% (7,284 of 16,141 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.90% 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. 
Confirmation Bias
27.8%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
18.4%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
6.3%
Loss Aversion
8.9%
Status Quo Bias
10.1%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
15.2%
Negativity Bias
28.5%
Self-Serving Bias
13.3%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
11.4%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
20.9%
False Dilemma
15.2%
Slippery Slope
13.3%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
11.4%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
13.3%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
29.7%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
11.4%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
25.9%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
13.3%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
28.5%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

158 words analyzed.

Analysis

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