• Global warming is a hoax.
• Socialized healthcare is bad for America.
• John Kerry is not a war hero.

An ounce of doubt is worth a pound of truth. In each of these lies, there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Yet, partisan hacks and their zealous sympathizers helped carry these messages into the American mainstream.

The truth has been bruised to the point that efforts to combat global warming have been hampered, legislation defeated, and candidates demoralized. Universal health care would save everyone (except for insurance companies and pharmaceuticals) money and possibly help us avoid outbreaks of disease. The effects of these smear campaigns can last for a generation or longer. In the case of global warming, experts say we don’t have that long.

How does one combat ignorance?

If the big guys don’t buy in, it won’t happen. Grassroots movements can win, but not on this massive of scale. We would have never made it to the moon if it wasn’t for JFK’s backing of NASA. For Gore to win at the fight against global warming, it has to including convincing the US government to look beyond short term gains for long term solutions.

By far, the biggest obstacle to forging a new accord by 2009 is the United States, analysts say. Senior Bush administration officials say the administration will not agree to a new treaty with binding limits on emissions. — Climate Talks Take on Added Urgency After Report

Great leaders can inspire people on such a massive scale so as to create the shift in thinking required to move mountains or land on moons. Or, they can delay or trip up progress indefinitely. I hope in the next elections that Americans pick a US President who understands and appreciates science and fact over FUD, and moreover has the backbone to do something about it for the sake of his or her own grandchildren.

Last night, we had dinner with our friend Lori who told us that her dad with a PhD in Chemistry doesn’t agree with the meteorologists’conclusions about global warming. I doubt that he’s looked at the data or statistics or run the numbers himself. How likely is it that all the people studying climate change agree with one another? Put 100 academics in a room to talk about anything and you’ll usually get 100 different opinions, but climate change academics all agree on this matter: carbon dioxide is heating up the planet and it’s very likely it’s a man-made problem.

My best guess is that, like other doubters, Lori’s parents are starting with a political position—I hate (fill in the blank here: Al Gore, environmentalists, etc.)—and arrive at their scientifically unsupportable position.

So how bizarre is it that many evangelicals have acknowledged and responded to the science and threat of global warming. For a group that will fight tooth and nail on the topic of evolution, these guys are showing some grit in going against a socially conservative Whitehouse and conservative thinktanks.

In fact, the Whitehouse did finally acknowledge the science of global warming, they’re just not willing to do anything about it. That’s because they’re actually worried about economic repercussions. Think about that. This Whitehouse, the same one that has driven America into record debt is worried about the economy.

What would happen *gasp* if we were to pump millions of dollars into alternative energy research? We might actually create new jobs, become an economic powerhouse worldwide reselling these technologies, and fuel a new economy (pun intended).

Related to this: it’s been known for years that the Yangtze River dolphin would soon be extinct if nothing was done to protect it from the increased polution and use of the waters it lived in. In June, reports said scientists were making a last ditch effort to save the few remaining individuals. There was no bias in this science. No one was starting with a conclusion (we must change China’s environmental policies) and working backwards to support a conclusion. It was just a fact. The animals were dying out. They would go extinct unless China changed the way they managed the river. There was no agenda other than saving a unique and important animal. Well, last month, the animals were declared extinct.

Also related to this: The World According to Dubya.

Explore, Compare, Share, Upload. The feature tour needs one more piece. Analysis. AKA the so what? You can draw some basic comparisons, but no conclusions. That would actually require some in-depth analysis, and just as importantly and understanding of the data. Where did it come from? How was it gathered? Who gathered it? Over what time period? Can bias be measured in the data and how will it affect the outcome?

I enjoyed Freakonomics because the authors didn’t just compare data using basic or advanced statistical analysis, they actually interpreted the results. Maybe that’s where Swivel is headed, but for now it’s a novelty.