Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

[boutons_]

air study:

http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080...ed_cities.html

[Wild Cobra]

What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

6th time this question has been asked.

I've answered that as good as I can. If you don't understand my response, I'm sorry.

Have a better question with numbers attached?

I said we know smog is a problem. I've said we know ozone is a problem.

What levels do you wish me to respond to?

You don't even know. Do you?

[Wild Cobra]

The following are listed as critical thinking skills:

from this website

If I ask an honest, pertinent question in good faith, and you refuse to answer, is that indicative of the above qualities?

I'm wasting my time with you. Aren't I?

You ask for honest and good faith answers, I give them. However, you are being underhanded since you loosely use the terms with no levels. Do you expect me to read their minds?

Are we talking of smog we can see, or just what we can measure.

Are we talking about any measurable smog?

Are you only going to be happy if I say only 0.000000% is acceptable?

I have responded with what I though was levels. I never say the administrations words in context. I see an article of an author that twists words, and you want more defined answers?

Again.... give me better defined questions.

I didn't read the 166 page report yet. Did you?

[Wild Cobra]

Here is the le of the article itself:

Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

Is the link between smog and premature death clear?

This is a simple yes or no question, so with all of your "vast knowledge of science" it should be a total slam-dunk.

The link IS NOT CLEAR with only a "likely" statistical confidence level!

Besides, that's the le of this thread. I didn't see an article led that. I have seen these les:

"Link Between Ozone Air Pollution and Premature Death Confirmed"

"Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction
and Economic Benefits from Controlling
Ozone Air Pollution"

Like I said from the start. You didn't provide a link. I did find it also, but it is a misrepresntation of the source material. Don't you understand that? Read the 166 page report yourself. OK? Maybe you'll stop listening to propagandist.

Anyway, at what levels? At what certainty? Did you read that part yet?

Again. Likely, i.e. 66% confidence. Is it so wrong to believe that others feel it is not likely?

To the blanket statement and nominal levels we have. I say that bull . To high levels that some places may experience, yes, it is is possible. Now what good does it do to tighten the standards even more if the current levels are being broken, and nothing happening?

Oh... One more thing...

You keep asking over and over the same question I answered over and over. How about going back and answering all of my questions please? Shouldn't one do what they ask of another?

[Wild Cobra]

The thing that bothers me most about people like Wild Cobra is that they give rabid anti-evironmentalists intellectual cover for their horribly irrational beliefs. In this, they function a lot like the sciency-sounding asshats in the conspiracy theory movement.

Bull . You simply do not comprehend what I am saying. I am using levels, you are not. You seem to think that my acceptance of a small quan y is horrible, yet you do not define any level at all, or discuss levels, solutions, etc.

At their heart the arguments they make tend to have a lot of "gee whiz" bull that sounds great to the casual observer, but when you do a modi of reasonable and fair critical thinking about what they are saying, the irrationality of their starting assumptions and their confirmation bias becomes pretty clear.

What? I have seen you as absolutely unreasonable. I don't see you exercising any critical thinking. It's just Attack Attack Attack!

I start by questioning the lead article and gave valid arguments. I have actually revised some of my statements. I have found the report and have referenced it rather than like you, referencing other people propaganda.

To get to your question:

First thing we really need to do is pretty much what the AAS team said:

Gather more data.

So why haven't you gathered any information?

We can't really come to decent, logical solutions without having a better grasp on the economic impacts. To do that, we need more research on the overall affects on human health of the various components of atmospheric pollution, such as ozone.

That is the basis of the report!

In this I fully agree with the report as I understand it (I have only read the press release from the academy regarding the report, but assume it is accurate) when it calls for such research. Good policy requires good data.

Correct.

I don't think even WC can argue with that statement.

I don't. I simply disagree with your portrayal of this thread.

It appears you are throwing me in with being completely opposed to environmental regulation. I am not. I just think we have to keep a proper balance in mind. We need to keep things as clean as possible, but within reasonable costs also.

The report cited simply advocates two things, neither of which WC can really argue against:

1) Specific studies on the wider health effects of ozone on large populations should be done to get solid data on how ozone affects entire populations.

and

2) We should consider the costs of decreased overall health of populations exposed to increased levels of ozone when determining cost/benefits of pollution control policies.

Because both of these are pretty reasonable, and WC is, at heart, a hack, he won't try to actually say they aren't, because he knows he can't win that.

Bull you ass. You have never asked me such a thing, and focused on questions that my answers were never good enough for you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

What he does here is simply try to argue around this, and throw up what amounts to essentially (pardon the pun) a smoke screen about smog.

My argument is that the standards are fine.

He doesn't want a more general debate about this as he knows that his position is pretty untenable, so he nit-picks, and tries the ol' "baffle 'em with bull " gambit in the hopes that it might fool the casual observer.



I ain't gonna let that happen.

You are the one nit-picking.

How about you using some honest debating here. At what levels does the report say are too high and where does the risk start?

[RandomGuy]

Is the link between smog and premature death clear.

The link IS NOT CLEAR with only a "likely" statistical confidence level!

Besides, that's the le of this thread. I didn't see an article led that. I have seen these les:

My apologies, I asked the wrong question.

You said that the article itself was inaccurate.

To claim that, you would have to prove that the article was inaccurate when it said that:

Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

The question that directly addresses your implication that the article was inaccurate:

DID THE PANEL CLAIM THAT THE LINK BETWEEN SMOG AND PREMATURE DEATH WAS CLEAR?

Yes or no will do.

By the way, I used the article le as the thread le. That seems to have confused you. Sorry about that.

[RandomGuy]

What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

6th time this question has been asked.

I've answered that as good as I can. If you don't understand my response, I'm sorry.

Despite my strong su ions that you damned well understood the question, but are choosing to be a dishonest hack, I will assume in good faith that you simply didn't understand the question as it was posed.

I will rephrase it to break it down into simpler terms, but we will need to agree on a starting assumption or two in order to proceed:

1) The Bush administration generally is against increasing pollution controls.

Agreed?

[RandomGuy]

You didn't provide a link.

My apologies. I didn't provide a link to the source article.

Since you seem to be unable to find an Associated Press article given the subject matter, author, and news organization, I took the liberty of doing the following.

I put the phrase "Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear" into google and hit "search".

The first thing that came up was an article whose le was, "Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear" at Yahoo.news.

Click here for a link to the source article.

I didn't think it would be difficult to find the original article. I will try to be a bit better about linking sources.

[RandomGuy]

Define "externality" in the sense of its usage in economics.

We need to agree on some definitions before we can have any meaningful discussions, so let's make sure we have some common understanding.

[RandomGuy]

I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences

Another aspect of good critical thinking:

S-5 developing intellectual humility and suspending judgment

Does the phrase "I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences" exhibit "intellectual humility"?

[RandomGuy]

yet you take [the story] as dogma.

I have also asked you for proof of this.

Please show a quote of mine that supports this thesis.

3rd time this question has been asked.

You cannot claim that I hold this article as dogma without providing proof of this statement.

Either admit you are wrong, or provide the proof.

[RandomGuy]

How about going back and answering all of my questions please? Shouldn't one do what they ask of another?

Sure. I will lump them all into this post, as time permits with future edits.

Are you pulling a "propaganda Dan?"

I have, over the last seven years, been horrified that this administration plays politics with science at all levels. This article was illustrative of that, and my intent was to show yet another instance of it. In that it was information that reflects my views it is "propaganda", yes.

However, you wouldn't swim in Clorox, would you?

No, I would not.

[Thinking about ozone levels is similar to thinking about swimming pools and chlorine, we are just dealing with higher or lower concentrations. Right?]

Correct.

why do you trust the article?

I pretty much already answered this one. I generally trust AP and Reuters articles, as they have standards of journalism that require them to do fact-checking on articles. It is more reasonable to trust them than to not to, given no other data to the contrary. The fact that the press release supported the articles description of the report tends to confirm this assumption as a reasonable one.

What is the proper context of what they extrapolate [the assessment that "arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits]?

I don't know what the "proper context" would be. Either some White House officials argued that the the "connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits" is true, or it isn't.

we have more smog in many places from the jet stream carrying pollution from Asia that we create ourselves! How do you regulate that?

You don't. You have treaties, and help these countries develop in such a way as to put less smog into the air.

Who is requesting unneeded grants?

I don't know. That depends on defining "needed" and "unneeded".

Have you ever looked at the levels of Nitrogen Oxide we produce from coal burning and auto emissions?

Yes, I have.

Should we return to the pre-industrialization era?

Heavens, no.

However, where does one come in contact with [high] levels [of ozone]?

According to the EPA, anyone who is outside in cities on "Ozone action days".

Are we going to try to eliminate everything and place hardships on the many for the few?

No. I would argue from the basis of basic economics and considering externalities, that decreasing levels of ozone by definition, places hardships on the few for the benefit of the many.

Did you know the EPA did in fact reduce the standards from 80 ppb (1997 standard) to 75 ppm, earlier this month?

Yes.

--------------------------

Time's up for RG's answer-a-thon. I will continue later.

[boutons_]

apropos:

America's Most Polluted Cities Revealed

Pittsburgh Beats Out Los Angeles as U.S. City With Worst Air Pollution

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Wea...4758772&page=1

.

[RandomGuy]

I never say the administrations words in context. I see an article of an author that twists words, and you want more defined answers?

The debate listed in the OP, was probably about the Annual Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations. (click link for pdf file)

In which the Office of Management and Budget attempts to quantify the costs and benefits of federal regulations.

The administration, in attempting to paint itself in as positive a light as possible, will attempt to define "costs" as narrowly as possible, and "benefits" as broadly as possible.

So when the administration attempts to assert that the "science isn't there" to back up something that might add a cost to the OMB estimate, you should be just a *wee* bit skeptical of an administration that has consistantly played politics with science to further its own ideological agenda.

[RandomGuy]

Why do you insist on taking this administrations' word as dogma?

[Wild Cobra]

My apologies, I asked the wrong question.

You said that the article itself was inaccurate.

To claim that, you would have to prove that the article was inaccurate when it said that:

I pointed out the incorrect naming of ozone as smog. I pointed out the NO2 and NO differences as to why the article was wrong. I may have cited other facts as well. With such easily seen errors in the article, one must wonder, what else is wrong?

The question that directly addresses your implication that the article was inaccurate:

DID THE PANEL CLAIM THAT THE LINK BETWEEN SMOG AND PREMATURE DEATH WAS CLEAR?

Yes or no will do.

No!

Not by what I read in the report. Again, LIKELY is not the same as CLEAR! They correlate ozone, to 25 ppb with some indication of statistical reliability, but they don't call it premature death at those levels. We are talking about people ready to die anyway. Then I would like to know what types of possible controls they can have without resorting to human experiments. There are other pollutants in the air. The report gets very difficult for me to follow all I have so far. Now on page 2, they do say:

The committee concludes from its review of the health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths. Despite some continuing questions about the interpretation of the evidence, the committee concluded that the evidence is strong enough to be used in the estimation of the expected mortality-reduction benefits of a decrease in exposure to ozone.

Again, ozone. Not smog! Then you have to read the report to understand at what levels they speak of.

Again, did you read any of the 166 page PDF? You really should if you wish to defend a media account.

At least the report doesn't' improperly mix the terms smog with ozone or the different types of NOx forms.

By the way, I used the article le as the thread le. That seems to have confused you. Sorry about that.

I meant to change that part. So much going on, I forgot I did find that article. I like the USA Today version better. It links a couple more relevant articles.

Despite my strong su ions that you damned well understood the question, but are choosing to be a dishonest hack, I will assume in good faith that you simply didn't understand the question as it was posed.

You expect me to come up with a political motivation when I don't see one. That is why may answer was the best I have. I believe they are in this case doing what they think is right, rather than political expedient. They are following the given guidelines of cost vs. regulation.

I will rephrase it to break it down into simpler terms, but we will need to agree on a starting assumption or two in order to proceed:

1) The Bush administration generally is against increasing pollution controls.

Agreed?

Yes, in general. So what? So do I. Each case is different.

yet you take [the story] as dogma.

I have also asked you for proof of this.

Please show a quote of mine that supports this thesis.

2nd time this question has been asked..

As long as you take the article as fact, without acknowledging the errors I showed, or showing my alleged errors as wrong, then yes. Dogma suits the purpose. You take the media at face value of giving the truth. Faithful right? Dogma isn't the best word, but it fits well enough. It appears you have a "code of belief" that this source (AP) is always right.

Wild Cobra:

There are millions of Bush Bashers out there that write propaganda and outright lies.

There are indeed.

Is it logical to conclude they are all wrong when they claim something about the administration?

Not at all. Some things president Bush does are wrong. However, when a story takes a competent report and twists what the meaning is, it does become just more Bush Bashing.

Wasn't this a response to the google search you linked? That link generated how many thousands? You could have at least liked something that was relevant rather than such numbers that are mostly Bush Bashing.

I have also asked you for proof of this.

Please show a quote of mine that supports this thesis.

3rd time this question has been asked.

You cannot claim that I hold this article as dogma without providing proof of this statement.

Either admit you are wrong, or provide the proof.

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over when I haven't had a chance to respond yet?

No you believe smog and ozone are the same as indicated in the article? Ozone is the subject, yet the administration was asked about smog, so what am I suppose to think? Ozone is a component of smog. It ca be at relatively low levels in high smog, or at relatively high levels in low smog. It's a stupid question to correlate the administrations answer on smog, and relate it to ozone. The components of smog must be addressed individually in this regard.

Now I lost some of my response, and I am a bit lost after a computer crash. I had something leading to this diagram:



Notice how O3 is primarily combining with something else, cleansing the air? Notice how there are also natural sources? Also notice how it completely ignores electrical causes... 3 O2 and electricity form 2 O3!:

O2 + uv energy → 2O
O + O2 → O3

This occurs around high voltage lines and anything that produces an electrical arc like electrical motors and generators too.

Now as wrong is I unlikely am, there is this natural ozone component that that contributes to the issue. I don't know at what levels, but it cannot be discounted.

Oh, maybe I should have linked this:

Ozone-oxygen cycle

It just dawned on me to actually find a source for you. Notice how the action in the wiki link shows a cleansing of Nitrogen Oxide and the destruction of the ozone! Your precious article says NO contributes to ozone, right?

Now if you look up ozone in wiki, it has thes:

Incidental production

Ozone may be formed from O2 by electrical discharges and by action of high energy electromagnetic radiation. Certain electrical equipment generate significant levels of ozone. This is especially true of devices using high voltages, such as ionic air purifiers, laser printers, photocopiers, and arc welders. Electric motors using brushes can generate ozone from repeated sparking inside the unit. Large motors that use brushes, such as those used by elevators or hydraulic pumps, will generate more ozone than smaller motors.

Anything that has a static electric or sparking component to it produces ozone. This includes air conditioning, subways, hybrids, etc. After we have such nice scrubbers on coal plants, and good catalytic systems on autos, what's next? Shutting down subways, elevators, power converter stations, etc?

How many high tension power lines are in the areas of high ozone? Also from wiki under ozone:

It can also be prepared by passing 10,000-20,000 volts DC through dry O2. This can be done with an apparatus consisting of two concentric glass tubes sealed together at the top, with in and out spigots at the top and bottom of the outer tube. The inner core should have a length of metal foil inserted into it connected to one side of the power source. The other side of the power source should be connected to another piece of foil wrapped around the outer tube. Dry O2 should be run through the tube in one spigot. As the O2 is run through one spigot into the apparatus and 10,000-20,000 volts DC are applied to the foil leads, electricity will discharge between the dry dioxygen in the middle and form O3 in O2 out the other spigot. The reaction can be summarized as follows:

3 O2 — electricity → 2 O3

The 10,000 volts or more does not have to pass through oxygen. This is for high volume production. It just happens any place that high tension lines exist.

I'm running out of time today. I will continue with your other posts.

Please avoid repeating the same questions I already answered, or haven't had a chance to respond to yet.

[Wild Cobra]

I have, over the last seven years, been horrified that this administration plays politics with science at all levels. This article was illustrative of that, and my intent was to show yet another instance of it. In that it was information that reflects my views it is "propaganda", yes.

I haven't seen that. I have seen how the media and leftist pundits lie about president Bush, but I have not seen him play politics like others do. He has some ideas that bother the out of me. But I have to defend him when others resort to lies rather than truth.

However, you wouldn't swim in Clorox, would you?

No, I would not.

I didn't even take that example to the proper level. I forgot to include tap water. I don't think anyone has problems with normal levels of chlorine put in the water to control unwanted bacteria and other possible health issues. Some people do have problems with the levels in swimming pools.

why do you trust the article?

I pretty much already answered this one. I generally trust AP and Reuters articles, as they have standards of journalism that require them to do fact-checking on articles. It is more reasonable to trust them than to not to, given no other data to the contrary. The fact that the press release supported the articles description of the report tends to confirm this assumption as a reasonable one.

Well they utterly failed on fact checking this one. They must lack several specialized technical editors. This one never was fact checked for scientific accuracy, or else they have a real idiot in charge of such fact checking.

I don't know what the "proper context" would be. Either some White House officials argued that the the "connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits" is true, or it isn't.

Wow... I'm sorry. That approach allows you to imaging any context you like.

I'm sorry, but context is very important. I'm sorry you feel like you can assume whatever you like.

You don't. You have treaties, and help these countries develop in such a way as to put less smog into the air.

LOL... Good luck. We have very clean air where I live until the jet streams decide to pollute our skies from Asia. We have no control what so ever on their pollution output.

I cannot wait until the 2008 Olympics are over, and a large pert of our population see just how bad it really is over there.

According to the EPA, anyone who is outside in cities on "Ozone action days".

And these are levels deemed at levels related to the 80 ppb (now 75 ppb) right?

I wonder. How many of those ozone monitors are placed in places where they may get inaccurate results for the whole area? They could be picking up localized sources in theory that do not reflect the whole region. I wonder at what level they call the alarm at?

No. I would argue from the basis of basic economics and considering externalities, that decreasing levels of ozone by definition, places hardships on the few for the benefit of the many.

How can such a statement be supported when the levels being debated only affect a very small segment of the population, and in statistical theory, with o hard evidence?

The administration, in attempting to paint itself in as positive a light as possible, will attempt to define "costs" as narrowly as possible, and "benefits" as broadly as possible.

Where did they say that in conjunction to the ozone/smog issue? I have yet to see any of that in a context to derive a proper thought upon.

So when the administration attempts to assert that the "science isn't there" to back up something that might add a cost to the OMB estimate, you should be just a *wee* bit skeptical of an administration that has consistently played politics with science to further its own ideological agenda.

Again, context. Without context, we can only place our biased guesses upon it. I prefer not to guess.

Why do you insist on taking this administrations' word as dogma?

Why are you so bigoted against me to assume that?

From the start, I pointed out holes in the article and asked for context. I'm sorry, but that it at best, a very ignorant assumption to make. I know you are better than that.

You... have been unable to provide any valid information. Just other links that I consider propaganda. The only good link that has the report in it does not support the articles lies!

[boutons_]

dubya/Repug/neo- s have politicized the career/professional staffing with ideological/coporate/lobbyist shill and emasculated scientific reports to protect businesses and DoD

================

Hundreds of Federal Scientists Ordered to Lie by Bush Administration

Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey conducted by the Center for Survey Statistics & Methodology at Iowa State University, commissioned by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

One half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.

The report said 60 percent of those responding, or 889 scientists, reported personally experiencing political interference in their work over the last five years. Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had seen the "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome" and 224 scientists said they had been directed to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information" in an EPA do ent. Nearly 200 of the respondents said they had been in situations where they or their colleagues actively objected to or resigned from projects "because of pressure to change scientific findings."

The University sent an online questionnaire to 5,500 EPA scientists and received 1,586 responses, a majority of them senior scientists who have worked for the agency for 10 years or more. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences.

The highest number of complaints about political interference came from scientists who are directly involved in writing regulations and those who conduct risk assessments such as determining a chemicals cancer risk for humans.

"The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations," UCS said.

In the survey, the EPA scientists described an agency suffering from low morale as the agency's political appointees and the White House Office of Management and Budget frequently second-guess scientific findings and change work conducted by EPA's scientists.

EPA managers initially instructed employees not to participate in the survey, but the EPA's general counsel's office later sent an e-mail to employees saying they could participate in their private time.



White House Gives Industry More Influence over Science Process

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) chastised the Environmental Protection Agency for giving industry the ability to directly input information into the EPA's influential database that catalogues chemical risk information, known as the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The new process lets "the White House and federal polluters derail EPA's scientific assessment of toxic chemicals," she charged. The new policy, announced April 10 on the agency's website, will allow industry to contribute its own biased information to the IRIS database, which was previously compiled solely by agency scientists. The new policy also allows for earlier and more extensive involvement by the White House and federal agencies that pollute the environment, such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.

According to the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the changes mean that:


• Affected corporations will be intimately involved in each step of EPA's risk assessment and will be able to know what staff are assigned to which work, making the agency "research plan" vulnerable to political manipulation through the appropriations process;

• The Defense and Energy Departments, two of the world's largest polluters, will have a formal role on how pollutants, such as the chemical perchlorate, are evaluated. In addition, these agencies could declare a particular chemical to be "mission critical" that would allow them to control how "data gaps" are to be filled. All their alterations will be made in secret. All intra-and inter-agency communications on risk assessments are deemed "deliberative" and thus confidential.

The new policy gives polluters power to determine which chemicals get assessed and how those assessments are conducted. It also formalizes a new process to be run by the White House and polluters behind closed doors and exclude the public.

Federal, state and international agencies use these assessments to create public health protections, including drinking water standards, toxic waste cleanup levels, air pollution limits, controls on dangerous chemicals in food and consumer products, worker protections and other safeguards.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...tml?view=print

[Wild Cobra]

dubya/Repug/neo- s have politicized the career/professional staffing with ideological/coporate/lobbyist shill and emasculated scientific reports to protect businesses and DoD

================

Hundreds of Federal Scientists Ordered to Lie by Bush Administration
<snip>

OK, let's assume the report is correct. Show me in it how Kennedy's portrayal of it is correct. He is a lying piece of slime who can be regularly heard on Air America. I listen to him from time to time. I wonder if he's on heroine again?

In the source site page, I didn't see any indication of where the interference comes from. If I had to assume the type of group, I would assume it comes from leftist groups through their congress members. I didn't see anything indicating the political source philosophy, or what the pressured changes entailed. Did you?

The le sets the viewpoint of the idiotic Huffington Post readers. Anyone reading that propaganda should verify the facts before repeating the work.

[Wild Cobra]

Funny how the results look more reasonable to me when it asks a good pointed question rather than ones based on heresay:

Question 39. How many activities or situations like those listed above have you personally experienced during the past 5 years?

0, 581(39.5%)
1-5, 655(44.6%)
6-10, 175(11.9%)
11-20, 34 (2.3%)
more than 20, 25 (1.7%)

How many people in their jobs agree all the time that their management is correct? If for only one time during the five years a worker thought his data was altered in a way he disagreed with, pressured to change it, etc, then he becomes one of the 655!

To trust what Bouton's posted, one needs to be an idiot after reading the full questionaire. I'd say 39.5% responding with ZERO incidents is a pretty good sign for a five year period.

I could get into allot of things that bother me about both the Union of Concerned Scientists and their report led Interference at the EPA. Let's just leave it as them being a left wing environmental group that... They themselves try to influence political decisions!

It's not even a requirement to be a scientist to be a member! Just send your $25 bux!

[RandomGuy]

yet you take [the story] as dogma.

I have also asked you for proof of this.
Please show a quote of mine that supports this thesis.

3rd time this question has been asked..

As long as you take the article as fact, without acknowledging the errors I showed, or showing my alleged errors as wrong, then yes. Dogma suits the purpose. You take the media at face value of giving the truth. Faithful right? Dogma isn't the best word, but it fits well enough. It appears you have a "code of belief" that this source (AP) is always right.

I didn't ask for your opinion.

I asked for proof. Proof you have failed to provide when asked.

If you couldn't just admit this was probably not a valid claim, and that is regrettable.

If you aren't smart enough to tell the difference between proof and your opinion, then I will have to simply have to increase my level of skepticism when you start making claims based on your "vast knowledge of science".

Either way, your claims that I am somehow deficient at critical thinking are beginning to sound just a *wee* bit hypocritical.

[RandomGuy]

I generally trust it to tell me what the study said, because such news reports are generally fact checked, and I have no reason NOT to trust the articles factual content.

Here is what I actually said about the article.

[RandomGuy]

I pretty much already answered this one. I generally trust AP and Reuters articles, as they have standards of journalism that require them to do fact-checking on articles. It is more reasonable to trust them than to not to, given no other data to the contrary. The fact that the press release supported the articles description of the report tends to confirm this assumption as a reasonable one.

Also what I said about the article.

These are the only times I have commented on the validity of the article itself.

[RandomGuy]

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

----------------------------

dogma
Noun
a doctrine or system of doctrines proclaimed by authority as true

------------------------------
Noun 1. dogma - a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

[RandomGuy]

Dogma isn't the best word, but it fits well enough.

Only if you don't know what the word means. You seem to be fairly bright, so in this instance it is more likely that you were being disingenuous than stupid.

Since I did your work for you and provided my actual words and thoughts regarding the article, I will stop asking the question. You "likely" would have continued your pattern of evasion, anyway.

I think we can safely assume that in this one instance you were not being honest. You were asked for proof of your claim, and not only failed to provide the proof of the claim, it can be reasonbly inferred that the claim was incorrect.