LEETERS: CHOOSE UNBIASED SOURCES FOR DATA

To the editor:

I agree wholeheartedly with Stan Crader's Dec. 6 letter that the Internet offers a great opportunity for those with an interest in global warming issues to seek more information. What Mr. Crader did not mention, however, is the importance of applying some judgment to the procees. There are many sources of information on the Internet on a vast diversity of topics. But not all are of equal reliability.

If we wish to learn about the health effects of tobacco products, for example, we would seek scientific or health-related sites and would not consult and R.J. Reynolds or Philip Morris Web page

Thus, when seeking information on environmental issues, we should visit sites where the authors have some credibility on the topic. A measure of credibility is wthere the authors, on the one hand, approach the evidence available with a preconceived bias (such as the tobacco companies on nicotine health risks) and thus straightjacket the evidence to satisfy their bias, or concoct supporting evidence, or deny and ignore any contrary evidence, or deny and ignore any contrary evidence, or, on the hand, whether the authors seem to be experts in the field, and draw conclusions that are suggested by analysis of all the available evidence.

Organizations or institutions that approach a question from a committed and biased political position are not good sources of ojective information and analysis. Since the entry page for the Cato Institute announces "21 years of promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets," we kno9w that its authors approach issues with a predetermined judgment regarding what the evidence must show. Open-minded students of current and scientific issues need not apply. The Ozone organization, however, is a "non-profit public interest of organization focused exclusively on two atmospheric threats..." and contains a vast number of articles on the issues from experts.

An alternative source for readers seeking a source where the evidence has led experts to their interpretation, rather than where bias has led to interpretation of the evidence, is the Union of Concerned Scientists. Here, again, experts (not politicans and right-wing commentators) perform the analysis and evaluation of the evidence. Not surprisingly, those who wish to force the evidence to meet their right-wing political bias find the conclusions of unbiased scientists and experts objectionable when they lead to contrary conclusions. The Union of Concerned Scientists can be found at http://www.ucusa.org/

ALAN JOURNET

Cape Girardeau