Moynihan's retort makes a good introduction to the topic of "structural dishonesty" - as practiced by certain "public policy institutes," also known as "right-wing think tanks." With reference to public transit, we do not believe that "structural dishonesty" is characteristic of "all" transit critics - and we do not believe that "all" transit supporters are free of it. However, related to public transit, we can document a good deal of "structural dishonesty" by certain "think tanks" - and certain associated individuals described typically as "adjunct scholars."

----------

Certain types of organizations tend to develop institutional bad faith because of their nature, structure, and lack of controls designed to insure good faith. Deception becomes a virtual "mission statement" (or "lifestyle choice") of such organizations - and this, as Sartre explains, can occur even with an organization composed of wholly honest people. A "public policy institute," for example, attempts to influence opinion and, ultimately, legislation. Its staff members seldom if ever participate merely to earn an income, or for lack of anything better to do. Staff members and associated persons - those "adjunct scholars" - tend naturally to be "true believers." Some such individuals tend to cling stubbornly to their "own facts." Unlike, for example, a newspaper, a "public policy institute" might omit anything resembling fact-checking or correction from its organizational structure. In other words, a "think tank" might exist, and operate, free of any significant controls that would avoid bad faith. Such an organization would be prone to "structural dishonesty" even given the best intentions of staff members and "adjunct scholars."

"Bad faith" may be easy to document simply by referring to its opposite - "good faith." Does a particular act suggest honesty and lack of deception? Was it performed with good and fair intention? Does the act suggest self-deception - that a person or organization has chosen to ignore inconvenient facts?

With reference to the stubbornness with which certain individuals, and organizations, cling to their "own facts:" Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident and retired Israeli politician, observed recently that "... people listen to those they want to hear."

This tends to insure the persistence of "structural dishonesty." Retaining and pleasing one's audience has obvious benefits (maintaining one's cash flow from subscriptions and contributions) that checking of facts and correction of errors does not. If, using strategic "spin control," one manages to package issues related to observable facts as mere differences of opinion, then so much the better. Of course, doing so tends to insure that "structural dishonesty" becomes firmly ingrained.

We shall document below, again with reference to rail transit, "structural dishonesty" and institutionalized - and obvious - bad faith of a particular "public policy institute" and certain of its staff members.

----------

The Independence Institute ("I.I."), headquartered in Golden, CO (west of Denver), describes itself as "Colorado's Free Market Think Tank."

The I.I. President is Jon Caldara:

Caldara is a television producer and talk-show host who was once the chair of the Regional Transportation District Board (he omits certain details of this experience from his online "resume").

The I.I. "Senior Fellow, Public Infrastructure" is Dennis Polhill, a retired construction engineer and "nationally recognized pavement expert" who was once President of the Colorado Chapter, American Public Works Association:

Note that Polhill is also a registered "professional engineer" (P.E.).

Polhill, in a 2002 "Opinion Editorial," warns about the dangers of ozone generated by the motors which power rail transit vehicles:

Ozone is produced in electric motors when arcing occurs. Arcing is a continuous process within these motors. Higher voltages and higher power demands yield more arcing and in turn, more ozone. Because LRT is powered by electric motors, some environmental assessment of potential affects [sic] is warranted. This question was raised in 1994 in Independence Institute issue paper: 'Stop That Train’ -- by Mueller and Polhill.

Polhill's statement about "arcing" is false - obviously, stupidly, and provably false. Moreover, even his statement about what he wrote previously (in 1994) appears false.

Modern electronic control systems permit construction of direct current (d.c.) motors without brushes. These are essentially alternating current (a.c.) motors with built-in d.c. to a.c. inverters.

In addition, traction motors used for electric railcar applications are hermetically sealed against dust.

It should be clear that the "arcing" described by Polhill does not occur within the traction motors used to propel modern light rail vehicles. Less clear - to us - is why a registered professional engineer would make such a claim.

The excerpt above suggests that Polhill stopped short (at 2002) of claiming that the "issue paper" called for an assessment of the environmental effects of ozone, generated by light rail traction motors. This impression is not correct; the full article article makes clear that Polhill claimed this explicitly. Mueller and Polhill did include a one-page section titled "Environmental Benefit Projection" in their 1994 paper. However, this deals with electric power generation efficiency and emissions. The "ozone issue" is conspicuous by its absence." Polhill's claim regarding the 1994 paper is not true.

We note that Mueller and Polhill do not mention ozone in other papers:

We think that readers might find the I.I. "disclaimer" of interest:

Note: The Independence Issue Papers are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute, or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

----------

In order to further illuminate this example of "structural dishonesty," we have reproduced  the entire excerpt quoted above, together with the two paragraphs that follow

Ozone is produced in electric motors when arcing occurs. Arcing is a continuous process within these motors. Higher voltages and higher power demands yield more arcing and in turn, more ozone. Because LRT is powered by electric motors, some environmental assessment of potential affects [sic] is warranted. This question was raised in 1994 in Independence Institute issue paper: 'Stop That Train’ -- by Mueller and Polhill.

Lets see how much has been learned in 8 years. Certainly a government concerned with the public well-being, as RTD is, can provide a factual reply. When contacted about this, RTDs Environmental Manager was unable to offer any information whatsoever or name anyone else at RTD or at any other agency with the knowledge to defuse the question.

(Polhill 2002.)

The statements highlighted above are false - as documented by e-mail communications provided to Michael D. Setty by staff members of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). These were written in response to outside inquiries, including one from Denver's Regional Air Quality Council. (Copies can be produced on request.)

I have a letter dated May 31, 1992 to Mr. Zoric Pirveysian, SCAQMD, Mobile Sources Regulation that presents a Mr. Berriman's opinion that direct ozone production from a 7 car light rail train produces VOC/NOX emissions equivalent to 8000 vehicles. The letter asks SCAQMD to study the issue. Could you share some of the history related to this issue and let us know if the SCAQMD ever responded to Mr. Berriman?

This letter has been referenced in a e-mail newsletter by the Independence Institute of Boulder, CO as a 1992 report by SCAQMD that indicates there are emissions from direct ozone production from LRT.

(E-mail communication from Gerald J. Dilley, Engineer-Planner, Regional Air Quality Council, Denver, CO, to Zorik Pirveysian Planning and Rules Manager, SCAQMD, dated June 11, 2002.)

We note - with much interest - that Denver's RAQC had a copy of the "Berriman letter," and that this had apparently been provided "recently" (at 2002).

The letter referenced in your e-mail was written by Mr. Lester Berriman representing Drivers for Highway Safety on May 31, 1992. Although we could not locate the original letter, we did confirm that Mr. Berriman had testified before the AQMD Governing Board on May 1, 1992 alleging that electric trains could possibly generate significant amounts of ozone emissions. In response to Mr. Berriman's testimony, the AQMD's Executive Officer (at the time) responded that "the quantity of ozone produced by an electric motor is minute compared to that which is produced when oil vapors and gasoline combine with NOx produced in the atmosphere."

Mr. Berriman apparently reached his conclusions based on the following assumptions: 1) a 1% power loss from electric trains (during power transfer at the catenary), and 2) ozone production from this power loss based on the efficiency of commercial ozone producing systems, neither of which have been proved or substantiated.

To our knowledge, there is no study conducted on the potential for ozone generation from electric trains. We also contacted staff from U.S. [Environmental Protection Agency] (which has direct jurisdiction over locomotive regulations), California Air Resources Board, and [the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority] which also confirmed that they were not aware of any such study and did not believe that ozone generation was an issue especially considering today's advanced light rail systems. We would however be interested if you find any technical data on ozone emissions from electric trains.

(E-mail communication from Zorik Pirveysian to Gerald J. Dilley, dated June 18, 2002.)

With reference to rail transit, we are aware of similar examples of "junk science" and pure falsehoods distributed from "coast to coast" by certain of those "public policy institutes," staff members and "adjunct scholars."

----------

Conservative leader Paul Weyrich, President of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, writes:

That, with reference to the case documented above, appears grossly understated.

We have heard other public transit professionals refer to the case documented above as the "ozone lie." However, we shall resist the temptation to use the labels "lie" and "liar" for reasons discussed previously:

In sum: in order to lie, one must have some knowledge or belief regarding "the truth." Absent this, one can "deceive" but cannot "lie." (Nor, we are advised, can one be convicted of "perjury" in a U.S. court if one can prove that one could not have known that the statement at issue was false – even if it actually was so.)

The implied "alternative" form of deception might be described politely as "B.S.-ing." By contrast with willful liars, "B.S.-ers" are not concerned with truth or falsity. Their primarily concern is to convince other that they have the facts; that that they're the person in the know, that they're the ones who have the "real story."

(Lying is an overt act - for which one can be prosecuted; "B.S.-ing" is more of a performance and is therefore difficult to prosecute. Thus the term "B.S.-artist.")

With reference to the case documented above, the most charitable assessment of Polhill (and similarly-credentialed collaborators) is ignorance - to an extent that stretches credibility to the breaking point.

We reiterate that Polhill is a registered professional engineer, and is not self-educated.

We find it extremely difficult to believe that a man with Polhill's education, work experience and professional credentials could "not" know about the differences among various types of electric motors.

Even more difficult to believe is the length of time that Polhill (and, we infer, Caldara) has clung to the falsities documented above. In his 2002 article, Polhill himself claims to have done so for nearly 20 years (at mid-2008). Six years have passed since the information provided by the Southern California Association of Governments was relayed to the Independence Institute; to date, I.I. has neither posted corrections nor taken down the article containing the falsities documented above.

It would appear that, on this particular topic, the Independence Institute has demonstrated unwillingness - or inability - to act in "good faith." I.I. has failed to exercise "due diligence" with regard to fact checking - and correction of statements proven false. We believe that such problems are endemic among many "public policy institutes" ("think tanks") - and are not confined to the general topics of urban affairs, public transit or rail transit.

As for Polhill, it is clear that he has acted in "bad faith" - as Sartre defined it - for a long time. In other words, by clinging to the falsities documented above, he has engaged evidently in virtual self-deception for nearly two decades. This leads us to wonder what others in his profession might think of Polhill, and his apparent ozone obsession, today. To quote a 19th century American poet:

...

Let not the land once proud of him

Insult him now,

Nor brand with deeper shame his dim,

Dishonored brow....

...

Again: we believe that such problems are endemic among staff members and "adjunct scholars" of many "public policy institutes" ("think tanks") - and these problems are not confined to topics such as urban affairs, public transit or rail transit.