Value of Truth

What is the value of truth? Is truthfulness a requirement for a democracy to survive? Unfortunately, for many, truthfulness is just another tool to be used, or not, to further a personal, political, corporate, or a myriad of other agendas. Individuals lie and cheat to get ahead; politicians stretch the truth to get or stay elected; corporations hire high-powered public relation firms to package their message with a total disregard for accuracy, and radical religious groups attack anything that contradicts their view of the world. Deception has been going on for as long as humans have been able to speak and communicate; however, technology has allowed dissemination of misinformation to be taken to new levels. A writer can now reach a global audience at little or no cost by use of the World Wide Web. Numerous areas have fallen victim to misinformation campaigns designed to further small minority agendas. Consequently, the truth is becoming elusive and with so much information available at the mere click of a button, people must be diligent and selective in their sources.

For example, the debate on global warming is foremost in the news lately and has become an extremely divisive issue. Proponents of global warming have vast amounts of scientific data substantiating their claims, whereas opponents, although well funded, offer only peripheral attacks and half-truths. Vocal religious organizations, on the other hand, have attempted to push creationism back into the classroom by reintroducing the Biblical based concepts with the more scientific sounding label, Intelligent Design. Nonetheless, Intelligent Design and Creationism are synonymous and ultimately a violation of church and state as ruled, repeatedly, by the highest court in the land. The last, and probably the most, important issue is that of government responsibility to provide accurate information to the American people. Throughout our history government officials have lied and cheated to further specific political agendas; however, lately misconduct seems to have reached an all time high.

In an article written for Rolling Stone Magazine, James Bamford claims that the Bush administration and his advisers began planning the invasion of Iraq well before the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and used this horrible event as an excuse for war (29). Charles Lewis reiterates Bamford’s claim in his article, “False Pretenses,” that the Bush administration knowingly used false and misleading information to justify this war to the American people and foreign leaders (online). Complete unbiased reporting of information is difficult at best, but when false information is purposefully released, damage to society is paramount.

The Environment

The truth has suffered where it relates to environmental protection. Powerful corporate interests who have a vested interest in policies regulating CO₂ emissions, water and air quality, and mining, as well as numerous other corporate activities, have embarked on misinformation campaigns to discredit mainstream science. Their message is simple: corporations can better regulate themselves in regards to the environment and governmental interference is not necessary. Arguing for less governmental interference and regulation, pro-business advocate, Jane Shaw, makes three main points in her article for the journal Business Economics. First, the environment in the United States is much better than in past decades, and American business is the reason. Second, public perception is poor about these companies’ efforts to protect the environment, and lastly, the implication that most companies are not doing their part to protect the environment is false. Shaw cites numerous studies and statistics and leaves the impression that these companies have implemented sound environmental safeguards on their own. Additionally, she downplays any news of current environmental damage as unsubstantiated propaganda by fringe radical environmental groups. Shaw points out instances of corporate industries taking on environmental issues independent of government regulation, and claims businesses would do a better job in protecting the environment if just left alone (Shaw). Much of what Shaw claims is true; however, her suggestion that corporations have implemented environmentally safe policies on their own is a misrepresentation of the facts. The environment is better now than in past decades not because of corporate good will, but because of stringent government regulation implemented since the 1970s. Greenpeace International, shows on their website, that Shaw’s primary funding comes from energy and oil concerns, specifically Exxon/Mobil (“Global Warming”). This would suggest that Shaw’s primary obligation is to protect the interests of her constituency, those who are damaging the environment.

With all the government regulations implemented in the 1970s, corporations have fought back by endorsing and providing campaign funds to pro-business candidates who would be willing to rollback many of the environmental safeguards that congress enacted. When the Republicans took over the majority in the House and the Senate during the 1994-midterm elections, many programs and agencies were eliminated. Perhaps the most detrimental to the way Congress got its information was the elimination of the Office of Technology and Assessment (OTA).

Created in 1972, the OTA was created to provide congressional members and committees with objective and authoritative analysis of the complex scientific and technical issues put before them. According to Chris Mooney, in his book, The Republican War on Science, the agency served as a model for many science advisory organizations created worldwide. Its goal was to provide a bipartisan assessment of current scientific issues and assist congressional members in their understanding. After the Republicans regained control of congress in 1994, one of first agencies eliminated was the OTA. Newt Gingrich, who led the charge, claimed that a more “free market” approach would serve congress better. The reality was that now congressional members could call their own handpicked scientists to argue for or against any given issue. Bipartisanism in scientific discovery had been eliminated in the halls of congress (49-64).

Global Warming

Writing for “The Independent,” Kathy Marks chronicles the story of the inhabitants of the tiny South Pacific island of Tegua, which has been their home for thousands of years. However, due to changing environmental conditions, its inhabitants are being forced to leave. These people contribute practically nothing to the global warming problem; yet, they have lost their homes because of it (online). The question arises: why is this our problem, and why should we concern ourselves with these people and their tiny islands? The unfortunate answer is because we, the American people, as well as many others in industrialized nations, are causing the problem and doing very little to stop it. Mainstream scientific agencies and organizations have been warning about the effects of global warming for years. In this country, however, the threat is being diminished by special interest groups with direct ties, not only to major corporate sponsors, but to our political leaders, as well.

These small, but vocal, groups of well-funded, special interest organizations are distributing information contrary to the views and conclusions of mainstream scientists. They allege that global warming is not a problem; yet, according to Greenpeace International, the vast majority of the scientists working for these groups are funded by big oil companies, specifically Exxon/Mobil—a company that has a vested interest in the reduction of pollution standards, not only in this country, but worldwide (qtd. in “Global Warming”). The organizations funded by Exxon/Mobil are creating debate over issues that would otherwise not exist. Most environmental scientists are dedicated professionals who allow the science to speak for itself. Their goal is clarity and truth; conversely, these others scientists who work for the special interest groups are willing to put forth views contrary to mainstream scientific findings. These scientists are paid to confuse the issues and put doubt into the minds of those who can make a difference.

Global warming is currently affecting every man, woman, and child on this planet. The Energy Information Administration’s  (EIA) 2005 report states that most industrialized nations have attempted to address this issue and signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. This agreement mandates limits on the amount of greenhouse gases each country can emit into the atmosphere. Only two countries have not signed the accord: Australia and the world’s biggest contributor per capita of greenhouse gases, the United States of America (“International Energy Annual”).

In 2000, when the Bush administration was elected into office, the political will to work towards any equitable or meaningful solution to global warming was compromised. Lobbying efforts by special interest groups that represented large petroleum manufacturers and energy corporations convinced the administration to reject any acknowledgement of the issue. According to an article on the “Natural Resources Defense Council” website, not only did the Bush administration refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocol, they also relaxed many restrictions put in place by previous administrations (“Rewriting the Rules”). Writing for the “New Scientist” website, Fred Pearce claims that at the behest of our current leadership, government management, at almost all levels, instigated a program to eliminate any elements whose views would be contrary to their own. A prime example was the firing of Robert T. Watson, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) (Pearce). For many years, he was considered by other members of the IPPC to be one of the most effective climate scientists in the business as well as an outspoken advocate of the idea that human actions are contributing to global warming. Of his many accomplishments, he was one of the first to promote the need to develop policies to avert the global warming trend (“Intergovernmental Panel”). In April 2002, Exxon/Mobil, one of the leading contributors to the Bush presidential campaign, lobbied and pressured the administration to have Watson removed and replaced with corporate friendly, climate scientist, Rajendra Pachauria, who, since being appointed, has discounted the harmful effects of global warming and the need take serious action. However, this is the opposite of his previously held views. Prior to his appointment, he supported Watson and was uncompromising in his belief that global warming was a serious problem (“Global Warming”).

The Bush White House has maintained its stance that global warming is not a problem throughout the last seven years in office. However, now, inexplicably, Bush has softened his position. To his credit, he made the following comments during the January 2007, State of the Union Address: “America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change” (“President Bush”). Admitting a problem exists is truly a milestone and an important first step for his administration; however, so far, very little has been done to implement any meaningful change.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), dated November 17, 2007, and released at their annual meeting in Spain concluded that:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92] °C is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8] °C (1901-2000) given in the TAR (Figure 1.1). The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16] °C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. (“Intergovernmental Panel”)

Most scientists involved with the IPCC are leaders in their fields and handpicked according to their levels of expertise. Numerous government and private entities have provided millions of dollars facilitating these scientists to establish an unbiased, professional view of what is actually happening to our planet and its ecosystem. Many of their assessments and conclusions are countered by a small, but well funded, group of individuals and organizations who claim the global warming threat has been overstated, and even suggest it to be a naturally occurring cycle that humans cannot control. Of the many organizations that have been created, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), founded in 1984, is, perhaps, one of the most vocal. Calling itself a “conservative think tank whose research on public policy reflects the principles of free enterprise, individual liberty, and limited government,” CEI consistently asserts the view that global warming is not a problem (online). Information found on their professionally designed website makes a very strong case that the global warming threat proposed by most in the scientific community has been exaggerated, and that no drastic action need be taken by our political leaders. They suggest environmental restrictions on corporations are already too severe and should be relaxed. Furthermore, if corporations are left alone, they will do a much better job policing themselves as to pollution control and damage to the environment. They claim that government intervention is not necessary and detracts from good business practices. No peer-reviewed scientific reports are available on their website. Apparently, scientists working for the CEI perform no hard science themselves or publish any relevant scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. They simply review and comment on what other scientists have written. Ultimately, however, their conclusions have already been established by their corporate sponsors.

As illustrated on Greenpeace’s website, when looking into the CEI non-profit business disclosures, one finds that over the last eight years they have received roughly $1.8 million in direct funding from Exxon/Mobil. Additionally, Exxon/Mobil, over that same period, has paid out almost $17 million to similar organizations, all with the same mandate: to refute Exxon/Mobil’s direct involvement in causing global warming (“Global Warming”).

As of yet, the organizations and scientists who are funded by Exxon/Mobil have not provided any substantial, peer-reviewed science that refutes the common held belief that global warming is a threat. Their counter arguments only serve to create uncertainty in the minds of the people who are then less likely to mandate the necessary changes and to minimize the problem. With this uncertainty and confusion, the corporations win by protecting their short-term profits at the expense of long-term environmental damage.

Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

Ever since Charles Darwin questioned human beginnings with his treatise on evolutionary theory, theologians have been attempting to discredit his conclusions. To the dismay of many religious leaders and lay people, subsequent scientific research has repeatedly reinforced Darwin’s assumptions. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University states that many fundamentalist Christians believe that the current lack of morality in society today is due to the teaching of Charles Darwin’s principal ideas of evolution, and these radical religious groups have adopted Intelligent Design as an alternative (online). Consequently, numerous organizations like the Discovery Institute, a Seattle based think tank best known for its advocacy of Biblical creationism and its “Teach the Controversy” campaign, have been created to provide an alternative, yet biased viewpoint. After failing for many years to implement the teaching of creationism in public schools, religious groups repackaged the message calling it “Intelligent Design.” They claim it to be a scientific look at the Biblical version of creationism. However, as scientifically based as is seems on the surface, no peer reviewed studies exist to justify these claims. Yet, despite these discrepancies, many in the United States discount evolution as plausible. According to Philip Kitcher, writing for the journal Social Research, more than half of the people residing in the United States believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. This basic belief is completely contrary to current scientific convention and, as Kitcher states, “an extraordinary record for an affluent democracy” (1205).

The United States Supreme Court has consistently struck down the teaching of Intelligent Design in classrooms claiming it to be a violation of the First Amendment separation of church and state. This, however, has not deterred Intelligent Design proponents from continuing to press for change in classroom curriculum. Judith Schaefer, deputy legal director of People for the American Way, a liberal civil liberties group, states that contrary views to evolutionary theory are welcome but they must adhere to scientific protocols: “The problem with design theory is that it starts with a conclusion, that there is a designer, and then it looks for facts to back the conclusions up. True science works the other way around—by formulating conclusions from observable facts” (qtd. in Masci).

To date the teaching of evolutionary theory prevails in U.S. classroom curriculum. However, creationism is frequently taught in many rural areas with large numbers of fundamentalist Christians. Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education states, “That when those kids go to college they’re going to realize that they’ve been lied to. You are simply not an educated person if you haven’t been taught evolution.” Scott goes on to say that, it is all right not to accept evolution as the definitive answer to human origins; however, it is vitally important to understand the process in order to develop an informed opinion (qtd. in Masci). Withholding this information does harm and is counterproductive to educational development.

Government and Private Businesses’ Responsibility to Truth

Throughout time, politicians have used whatever means they deem necessary to further their own political agendas. Whether it is simply withholding pertinent information from the general public to a full-scale misinformation campaign, telling the truth has become the exception rather than the rule. Obviously, maintaining national security is a justifiable excuse for withholding critical information, but lately this has been used as a catchall for every lie and deception coming out of Washington. Numerous examples of calculated misinformation campaigns have been documented in the press.

James Bamford reported one such operation. He chronicled the involvement of John Rendon, owner of the Washington D.C. public relations firm Rendon Group. Through numerous interviews and investigative reporting, Bamford uncovered a concerted effort by Rendon, at the behest of the Defense Department and the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), to mislead people worldwide as to the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (31-4).

In late 2001, Rendon, with millions in covert government contracts, was tasked with designing and implementing a propaganda campaign to justify a preemptive strike in Iraq in order to depose Saddam Hussein and eliminate the perceived threat. At about the same time, in a small town in Thailand, representatives from the CIA administered a lie detector test on Iraqi dissident Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri. The story al-Haideri told had a chilling effect on his interrogators. He told of massive amounts of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons created and then hidden by Saddam Hussein in direct violation of restrictions placed upon him after the first Gulf War. The only problem was none of it was true. He had made it all up because of his desire to end Saddam Hussein’s rule and needed the United States military’s help to do it. He was willing to do anything to accomplish this task, including lying about WMDs (Bamford 41).

This was exactly what Rendon needed. He ignored the false nature of al-Haideri’s testimony, and within weeks had placed the information in a number of national news organizations as being accurate. This was the beginning of a $100 million misinformation campaign during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This information, compounded by the shock of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, enabled the Bush administration to push through his war (Bamford 24-45).

Shortly after the September 11 attacks, the Rendon organization was awarded another large contract by the Pentagon to work directly with the Military and the White House providing covert disinformation and deception operations. Of the many tasks assigned to their organization, primary was to monitor Middle Eastern news agencies and immediately counter any reporting they deemed unfavorable to U.S. goals. “Never before in history had such an extensive secret network been established to shape the entire world’s perception of war. It began before the war started and continues as post-conflict distortions” (Bamford 41). 

Another issue that might not seem too important on the surface, yet upon reflection, is the embodiment of corporate greed, is how information is disseminated to the general public vs. corporate profits. David Biello, writing for Scientific America, examines proposed government legislation that would require peer reviewed reports that were funded by tax dollars to be openly published on the internet within six months of release. Traditional publishers have fought back, resisting this trend by hiring high-powered attorneys and public relations firms who have argued that this type of free mass distribution violates confidentiality agreements and traditional convention. Ultimately, it all comes down to money and power. According to Eric Dezenhall, head of Dezenhall Resources, a public relations firm that specializes in high stakes communications and marketplace defense, “denial of public access would be equal to government censorship”; whereas, attorneys hired by the publishing industry claim that publication in scientific journals is necessary to preserve the quality and pedigree of the science (online). Although publishers are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars through lobbyists to fight the new rules, the open-access movement continues to make headway. This illustrates how powerful special interest groups can assist in policies dictating how the public gets its information and the total disregard for open scientific dissemination in favor of protecting profits.

United States citizens are given the right to free speech by our Constitution; however, what responsibility does the press have in maintaining a non-biased and fair approach to its reporting? Kathy Kock writing for CQ Researcher, reports that major news organization, in an attempt to maintain supremacy in the industry and preserve shareholder profits, have turned to increased coverage of “soft” and sensational news and have de-emphasized coverage of critical hard news. This changing climate of news reporting that is taking place worldwide is due to the advent of the Internet and cable news channels offering a 24-hour news cycle. Critics complain that the changes are seriously undercutting traditional journalistic values. Others say the changes are necessary and by giving a voice to a greater number of people—through personal websites and blogs—a balance can be maintained (online). Journalistic ethics are changing every day and in an industry that is primarily self-regulating, even the most egregious incidence of untruthful behavior is simple covered up with more dishonesty.

Numerous instances of journalistic misconduct have been reported in the news; however, one of the most flagrant examples is that of Stephen Glass. Writing for The New Republic magazine, Glass was an ambitious young college graduate who made up most of the stories he wrote. It was not until Adam L. Penenberg, writing for Forbes magazine, noticed some inconsistencies in some of Glass’ stories that the truth was revealed and Glass discredited and fired. In this example, the media was able to police itself and remove the problem. However, it was only due to Glass’ blatant nature of his offense that led to his downfall. But, what about journalists who nuance the truth in one direction or another? Cable news commentators are becoming increasingly biased, especially in the political arena.

Final Thoughts

            What is the value of truth? What is the value of a lie? Vladimir Lenin once said, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” People tend to believe what best suits their view of the world, despite its accuracy. Politicians, government leaders, and corporate executives know this to be true and can easily sway public opinion with little, or no, criticism. With so many voices being heard via the Internet and mass media today how can anyone know if the message is accurate and correct? Even peer-reviewed information is attacked, not on its merits, but because of a perceived threat to profits, religious dogma, or political aspirations. Benjamin Disraeli said, “How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.”

Most people pride themselves on scientific discovery and the advancement of human knowledge; however, of late, these principles have been under increasing attack by special interest groups. To question a scientific position with science is a valid and necessary element to truth. However, to attack scientific discovery because the result is inconvenient or counters a long held view, is counterproductive and only hurts discovery and society as a whole.

Religious organizations have attacked evolution and the basic separation of church and state. They claim that science is attacking the religious foundations this country was built upon. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our founding fathers specifically created a separation of church and state; as a result, organized religion has flourished. The state not only must guarantee true freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. Citizens have the choice to worship, or not, as they desire. Attempting to integrate religious teachings into our public school system goes against this basic principle entirely. Government must govern for all, regardless of religious affiliation, or lack thereof.

Corporations, in fear of losing profits, have funded misinformation campaigns designed to put doubts into the minds of the public as to the effects of global warming and pollution. They have funded non-profit organizations that pose arguments counter to mainstream scientific conclusions. They offer no peer-reviewed science of their own, only attack what others have painstakingly created. Attempting to hide their affiliation with big oil concerns, these organizations model themselves as consumer advocacy groups whose only purpose is to look after the best interests of the general public. Government officials pander to these groups because of the massive amounts of campaign money that is at stake. In the 2000 presidential campaign, oil companies donated more than $1.5 million to Bush. Immediately upon taking office, he rolled back numerous environmental protections. This blatant pandering to his core-funding base has had devastating, long-term effects on the environment that might not be revisable and will affect everyone on the planet for years to come. Unfortunately, Bush’s decisions regarding the environment were all based on lies created by corporate interests looking out for their own profits. He owed them for helping his candidacy and voted against the best interests of the American people. And this was just the beginning of a pattern of consistently ignoring sound science, lying to the public, and favoring special interest groups.

Did George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld lie about the reasons for going to war in Iraq? Many think they did. It has become apparent that the American people were misled after the attacks on the World Trade Center. Iraq was never a threat to this country, and our true enemy, Al-Qaeda, is still a functioning organization and gaining power every day with Osama Bin Laden still making decisions. The existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction turned out to be a fabrication; the Iraqi people did not greet us as liberators, and the claim that the war would pay for itself proved false as well. Perhaps the true reasons for this war will never be known.

However, Bush is not alone. Other presidents have also had problems telling the truth. Lyndon Johnson's assurances to the American people regarding the second Tonken Gulf incident, and later revelation of its fabrication let to his political demise and humiliation. Richard Nixon’s attempt to cover-up his involvement in the Watergate break-in and Bill Clinton’s lying to congress led to both a resignation and an impeachment.

In order for a democracy to function, its voting base must be literate and informed. Beyond that, a political democracy is more than a government or society; it is a democratic social spirit in the minds of its population. Leonard Hobhouse described democracy as a phase of social life, which “founds the common good upon the common will, in which it bids every grown-up, intelligent person to take a part” (qtd. In Ellwood). However, in order to achieve a “common good” its citizenry must have the ability to make valid judgments based on valid information and at the core is truth. A democracy that discounts the value of truth is only a democracy in name and cannot function as such. Organizations, whose primary goal is to disseminate false and misleading information must be identified as such and dealt with accordingly. True and accurate information is critical and imperative for Democracy to function. It is the only safeguard society has against tyranny.

------- Charles Cornwall, April 20, 2007

Works Cited

Bamford, James. “The Man Who Sold the War.” The Best American Magazine Writing 2006.

The American Society of Magazine Editors. New York: Columbia UP, 2006. 24-45.

Biello, David. "Open Access to Science Under Attack.” Scientific America. 26 Jan. 2007.

Dixie College Lib. 19 Feb. 2008. <http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=open-access-to-science-un/>.

Bohane, Ben. “A Village Flees For Safer Ground.” The Sydney Morning Herald. 23 Dec. 2005.

27 Feb. 2007. < http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/a-village-flees-for-safer

ground/2005/12/22/1135032135870.html>.

“Bush's Rangers and Pioneers.” The White House for Sale. 18 Jan. 2005. 27 Feb. 2007.

<http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/contributorsandpaybacks/pioneer_search.cfm>.

“The Climate Debate is Over: It's Time for Action!” Greenpeace. 2 Feb. 2007. 28 Feb. 2007.

<http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/strongest-climate-warning-yet>.

Competitive Enterprise Institute. 26 Mar 2008. < http://cei.org>.

Ellwood, Charles A. "Democracy and Social Conditions in the United States." International

Journal of Ethics 28 (1918): 499-514. 23 Mar. 2008. <http://links.jstor.org/>.

Forrest, Barbara. “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature

and Goals.” Center for Inquiry. Jul. 2007. 16 Mar. 2008. <http://www.centerforinquiry.net/advocacy/id_creationist_movement>

“Global Warming and Energy.” Greenpeace. 2 Feb. 2007. 28 Feb. 2007.<http://www.

greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy>.

“Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” 22 Feb. 2007. 12 Mar. 2008.

< http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm >.

“International Energy Annual 2004.” The Energy Information Administration. Jul. 2006.

27 Feb. 2007. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html>.

Kitcher, Philip. "Public Knowledge and the Difficulties of Democracy." Social Research 73.4

(Winter 2006): 1205-24. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Dixie College Lib. 12 Feb. 2008. <http://search.ebscohost.com/>.

Koch, Kathy. "Journalism Under Fire." CQ Researcher 8.48 (1998): 1121-44. CQ Researcher

Online. CQ Press. Dixie College Lib. 18 Feb. 2008.<http://library.cqpress.com/

cqresearcher/cqresrre1998122500>.

Lewis, Charles, Mark Reading-Smith. “False Pretenses.” The Center for Public Integrity. 26

Mar. 2008. <http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard>.

Marks, Kathy. “Rising Tide of Global Warming Threatens Pacific Island States.”  The

Independent. 26 Oct. 2006. 26 Mar. 2008. <http://www.independent.co.uk/ environment/climate-change/rising-tide-of-global-warming-threatens-pacific-island-states-421493.html>.

Masci, David. "Evolution Vs. Creationism." CQ Researcher 7.32 (1997): 745-68. CQ

Researcher Online. CQ Press. Dixie College Lib. 18 Mar. 2008 <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1997082200>.

Mooney, Chris. The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books, 2005.

“Rewriting the Rules: The Bush Administration's First Term Environmental Record.” Natural

Resources Defense Council. 2005. 28 Feb. 2007. <http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/

rollbacks/execsum.asp>.

Pearce, Fred. “Top Climate Scientist Ousted.” New Scientist. 19 Apr. 2002. 10 Mar. 2008.

< http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2191-top-climate-scientist-ousted.html>.

Penenberg, Adam L.” Lies, Damn Lies, and Fiction.” Forbes.com. 5 Nov. 1998. 26 Mar. 2008.

<http://www.forbes.com/1998/05/11/otw3.html>.

Prah, Pamela M. "War in Iraq." CQ Researcher 15.37 (2005): 881-908. CQ Researcher Online.

CQ Press. Dixie College Lib. 18 Mar. 2008 <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

cqresrre2005102100>.

“President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address.” The White House. Jan. 2007. 28 Feb.

2007. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html>.

Shaw, Jane S. "Business and the Environment: Is There More to the Story?" Business

Economics 40.1 (2005): 40-5. Business Source Premier. EBSCOhost. Dixie College Lib. 12 Feb. 2008. <http://search.ebscohost.com>.

“Strongest Climate Warning Yet Demands Action.” Greenpeace. 2 Feb. 2007. 28 Feb. 2007.

<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/ippc-climate-warning-020207>.