No, I thought he was using the death penalty to hold down health care costs
No, his idea of government for the public good is whatever Rove tells him it is.
Yes, I just took my lips from the administration's collective genitals just now, and was astonished.
Yes, This is the first news story I have read. Ever.
Oh really?
Perhaps my limited knowledge of science doesn't allow me to read well, either.
Let's try a simple non-sciencey comparison and see if my reading comprehension is up to speed.
Yes or no, are these two statements interchangible? Are they synonymous?Link between massive amounts of rain and floods confirmed.
Link between massive aomunts of rain and floods is clear.
Quid pro quo. Answer this yes or no, and I will answer one of your questions.
More lung problems from "minor" air pollution:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0505094136.htm
conservatives/Repugs financed by BigBusiness:
"The evidence is contradictory, we need more study (but we won't pay for it since we don't really give a ), so we DO NOTHING"
yawn, their tactics are perfectly well known and totally, self-servingly dishonest (and self-enriching).
Okay, Obama and Hillary. Take deep breaths, hold it, now exhale.
One more time. Take deep breahts, hold it, now exhale. Repeat
as often as necessary. If you do this enough times it will solve all
our problems.
Random, I'm sorry. We obviously speek a differnet language.
I proved the article as wrong by citing that NO is not the same as NO2 and more, like smog and ozone not being the same thing.
Dogma fits the way I want to show my opinion of you because you have a faith in the AP article beyond comprehension to me.
I'm done with you. You sidestep my questions, yet demand answers from me different than what I give.
You are impossible.
Yeah, we "speek" a different language alright. Parlez vous bull ?
You're just pissy because I have caught you pretty much lying in a couple of places. You either aren't as smart as you think you are, for all your "vast knowledge of science", or you aren't honest.
I haven't quite figured out which, but I am beginning to think it is a mixture of both.
Then I won't bother with the fancy details in the report.
, let's try for something really, really, simple, so you can follow along.
LINK
It certainly looks like the article was pretty accurate here, doesn't it?
The rest of your argument that the the article is inaccurate boils down to the semantic difference between "smog" and "ozone air pollution". Hate to break it to ya sport, there isn't really that much difference between the two, and editors often look for ways to cut the length of headlines. In case you haven't noticed the word "smog" is a bit shorter than "ozone air pollution", and synonymous enough that it is fair to interchange them.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-06-2008 at 09:46 AM.
Having really read the article and the available evidence, I don't see what ISN'T accurate in the article.
Let's repost it here for reference, and go through it paragraph by paragraph.
This is exactly what the report concluded.Short-term exposure to smog, or ozone, is clearly linked to premature deaths that should be taken into account when measuring the health benefits of reducing air pollution, a National Academy of Sciences report concluded Tuesday.
The OMB is part of the white house, and that is what the article refers to, so this passes muster as well. The report contradicts what the OMB has argued.The findings contradict 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.
There is a direct quote there, presumedly from the report. I haven't checked to verify it, but it seems reasonable enough to conclude that they aren't outright lying.The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies "should give little or no weight" to such arguments.
Again, a direct quote. Unless WC wants to outright accuse the reporter of lying, we should assume that the quote is correct. This quote must be considered correct even if the science editor is an "idiot", since he didn't write the quotation."The committee has concluded from its review of health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths," the 13-member panel said.
Even WC acknowledges this bit, so I can only assume that when WC says that the article was inaccurate, he wasn't talking about this...It added that "studies have yielded strong evidence that short-term exposure to ozone can exacerbate lung conditions, causing illness and hospitalization and can potentially lead to death."
(times up gotta go)
Lastly, WC, you have said I have "sidestepped" questions. I don't think this is the case, but it is easy to strip you of your ability to lie about this too.
I invite you to ask away. Give 5 questions, and I will fairly answer them in good faith, as I have done previously.
After which, I will ask for the same. I have little hope to get good faith answers in return, but maybe you will surprise me this time.
RG your in a mood this morning. Maybe the Spurs will win the next
four and get you in a better mood. Sheeeesh!
I gotta admit, I stayed up late to watch the game. Both the painful blowout, and missing a full night's sleep has made me a tad cranky.
I do have faith in Pop to adjust, and in the Spurs' home advantage for the next two games.
I heard that Duncan had the flu, and that is something that is temporary. Hopefully he wiped his nose on the ball before checking it to west or CP3...
That and maybe the refs won't allow NO to play as dirty as they have been. NO has gotten away with murder, IMHO. That's ok, all it does it make Tim mad, buwahahahaha!
oops, a basketball discussion has broken out in a pissy politics thread, don't tell Kori...
RG=I heard that Duncan had the flu, and that is something that is temporary. Hopefully he wiped his nose on the ball before checking it to west or CP3...
RandomGuy is offline Reply With Quote
Random, I'll tell you what. Support the article with the facts of the report. Show me the page and words that support the article you cited in posting #1. Until then, I have no more to say to you on this subject.
Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution
Coming from a guy who puts more faith in Ann Coulter than he does AP or Reuters, I don't think it should be too hard to hand you your ass here.
You're on, hack-boy.
RG, come on, do you give that much credence toComing from a guy who puts more faith in Ann Coulter than he does AP or Reuters, I don't think it should be too hard to hand you your ass here.
You're on, hack-boy.
AP and Reuters? I think I would go with Coluter as much
as those two. At least Coulter doesn't try to dress up her
stuff as a news story. You know her stuff is opinion, you can
never be sure with AP and Reuters.
So WC's response to this? Did he admit that he might have gotten anything wrong? Did come anywhere close to saying that the article might have been telling the truth about anything?Then I won't bother with the fancy details in the report.
, let's try for something really, really, simple, so you can follow along.
LINK
It certainly looks like the article was pretty accurate here, doesn't it?
The rest of your argument that the the article is inaccurate boils down to the semantic difference between "smog" and "ozone air pollution". Hate to break it to ya sport, there isn't really that much difference between the two, and editors often look for ways to cut the length of headlines. In case you haven't noticed the word "smog" is a bit shorter than "ozone air pollution", and synonymous enough that it is fair to interchange them.
No. He continued dodging and wants to make ME do all the work. Lazy and dishonest to the end.
You are the one claiming the article is not accurate. The burden of proof is on you, just as it is on me to prove that Ann Coulter is less than committed to the truth when I say she is a liar.
Somehow I think my job is easier than yours.
Here is what I actually said about the article:RG, come on, do you give that much credence to
AP and Reuters? I think I would go with Coluter as much
as those two. At least Coulter doesn't try to dress up her
stuff as a news story. You know her stuff is opinion, you can
never be sure with AP and Reuters.
Honestly: Does either of these statements sound like blind faith to you?
Sorry, I missed those points. But sometimes even
those "fact checked" items are in fact skewed to their
way of "thinking" and made to fit the story at hand.
Much like Algore is now claiming Global Warming caused
the cyclone in Mymanar (sp) that killed all those folks.
Sadly a great many folks will believe that.
That does indeed happen on occasion.
You didn't answer my question, though. Did either of those statements sound like blind faith?
Promise I won't dog ya on this one, I just wanted a semi-neutral opinion.
Big Chem and politicians "inconvenienced" by attempts to cleanup a Dow site:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050708J.shtml
If BigBusiness' and Repugs' lips are moving, they are lying.
Will the DoD and it's $600B/year budget pay for cleaning up perchlorate?
http://www.ewg.org/reports/rocke er
After 85 years of abuse, the AF has spent $500M+ cleaning up our own Kelly Field earth.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/july2001/0701kelly.asp
Now, what about the diseases caused by Kelly to employees and neighbors?
Another indication of dubya/Repug political hatchet men throughout the Exec branch and their policies NOT enforcing the laws and regulations, politicizing non-political govt, and pissing of govt employess trying to do their jobs.
'what PEER has seen in the past seven years under Bush is an increase in the career level of federal employees who are calling for help. In the past, the typical request for assistance would come from a National Park biologist; today they field calls from National Park superintendents."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050708J.shtml
Conservatives enforce the laws only when it enriches them. Otherwise, laws are made to be broken and ignored.
I said I had a hard time following the report. That was when I first looked at it and before I spent more time reading it. As for the semantics, I don't agree. The meaning of words are important. Words that mean specific things cannot be freely interchanged. I said this early on. Ozone is a component of smog. Smog is not ozone. Smog normally contains ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and a few other component. What you are doing is the same as taking a mixed drink that contains orange juice, then any time you see orange juice, you call it an alcoholic drink!
I have not dodged your questions. You have dodged mine. I read the report. I provided information and explanations in my words. All you do is recite others work, then refuse to actually respond to what I say pertaining to the subject. If you don't understand my explanations, I'm sorry. That's not my problem, but your lack of comprehension.
I have clearly said why the article is inaccurate, so I ask that you show me why it is accurate.
Why am I wrong? Because I disagree with an article?
Ann Coulter doesn't matter on this issue. How about we try to stick with the report.
Then show me relevance. You still have not shown the article as being an accurate reflection of part of the report.Somehow I think my job is easier than yours.
The report primarily talks about ozone and the statement in the press release says ozone. Consider this:
Report le:
Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic
Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution
Press release le:
LINK BETWEEN OZONE AIR POLLUTION AND PREMATURE DEATH CONFIRMED
Article le:
Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear
The word ozone appears in the report 1709 times. The word smog appears in the report three times! It appears six times if you include AHSMOG and two references listed that have smog in the le. The word smog appears in the press release only once, where it says "Ozone, a key component of smog, can cause respiratory problems and other health effects."
The article uses the word smog six times not counting the le!
Now if you go back to the diagram I linked, ozone (O3) is only created by NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) which is created by the combination of NO (nitrogen oxide) and ozone, or NO and RO2. All the other places ozone is listed shows it being consumed in the process.
The article also says:
Names, position, and what did they say in context? The only indication I see to support this are the words quoted from the president of Clean Air Watch which I would say are very likely biased. The article also cites the Environmental Defense Fund.The findings contradict 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 have asked for evidence and specifically levels waged against the allegations. I have asked for the words in context to support the idea the administration is against what the article claims, and again, the levels are important.
You have not supplied any.
Again, please show me what the report says that supports the article.
This is the second time I am asking this question, and at least the third time for the other two.
Nope it doesn't appear that you accept their reporting
on "blind faith". You take, as most do now days, all
reporting, verbal or print, with a grain of salt and some
skepticism. I know I do.
But what the heck, it is nice to stir things up with an
article that just makes the opposition unhappy....
So your entire assertion that the article is inaccurate boils down to the semantic difference between "ozone" and "smog" and counting how many times the word "smog" appears in the article?
That's your "A" game? The best you can do?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
