Reply With Quote
^^^^
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.
(shrugs)
It matters because I am breaking down a logical argument into its component pieces.
Because you are a lying weasel, I have to do this to remove your ability to weasel out of your logical mistakes and intellectual dishonesty.
You probably realize this on some level and that is why you prevaricate, and prefer obfuscation over answering simple yes or no questions with simple yes or no answers.
But let's continue the vivisection of your illogical views...
^^^^
You are the lying weasle.
Again, smog and ozone...
How an I wrong about the article being wrong. That's all I ever argued, that the article was wrong. The article misrepresents the report.
Fail.
The question that the report ultimately sought to answer, and did, is:
"Should future regulatory-impact analyses (RIAs) concerning ozone- control measures include the benefits of reduced mortality risk?"
The answer the report came up with was "Yes, they should."
To be able to reasonably and scientifically reach this conclusion they would have to review available evidence to see if there was enough reason to conclude that there was a definite link between ozone exposure and increased mortality.
This ran directly counter to arguments by the white-house controlled OMB, who argued against this.
This is exactly what the article showed.
The reason you don't like it, is that it shows something rather unethical and unscientific that the administration did, likely for purely political reasons.
You dishonestly seek to discredit the entire article based on simple semantics, as if that would make what the administration did any less vile.
Shame on you.
So what. That's not what the article said, and it was the articles accuracy I questioned.
This isn't what our argument was about, that is why I didn't go back and look at that. Again, I don't dispute that. How can you twist this argument into that?
You just cannot stand to lose so you change the argument, so you're a ing loser.
Answer our original argument about the accuracy of the article.
No, a third party was a source of that comment.
Hearsay.
Yes. I discredit the article for lack of dilligence to be correct. They quoted two activist sources and ed with the truth of chemistry.
But I said this near the start of this thread already. You just don't accept that as a valid reason.
The article did not talk about specific levels, because the report did not talk about specific levels, mainly because IT WASN'T RELEVANT.
There you go again. Refusing to return to the original argument. That was a derailment we went on. However, levels are important under relative conditions. Remember why I asked for levels? If not, forget it.
Because the thrust of the article, was not about getting the chemistry right, or whether "smog" and "ozone" are interchangible, or even about specific levels.
It was about whether the link between increased mortality and exposure to ozone was clear enough to be used in budget calculations.
If memory serves, I even provided links to where the administration officials, in the form of the OMB, said pretty much exactly what those "activists" said they did.
Indeed, if you read the report, SOMEONE was asserting that it wasn't reasonable to factor in increased mortality into budgetary analysis of environmental legislation.
Who do YOU think that was, braintrust?
You want to talk about levels because it distracts from the central issue of the budget analysis.
Addressed in past posts, but you never addressed them back.
Go yourself. I'm tired of repeating myself and getting no where with you. You're a broken record.
No. Here is an example of your stupidity. You disregaurd what I specifically say, and assume idiotic stuff like this.You want to talk about levels because it distracts from the central issue of the budget analysis.
Go back and read my responces. If you want me to continue, tell me what I already said about why I wanted levels.
Ah, it. I will just sum up your "proof" for you, because I have given up on waiting for you to be honest enough or not lazy enough to do so.
The article didn't mention cancer at all. I find it offensive that you would either attempt a strawman, or be too lazy to really read the article. I assume it was laziness and not stupidity.
You go on repeatedly to make the same two points, over and over.
To demonstrate that I fully understand what you are saying I will restate what you posted in my own words.
The two points you are making are:
1) The word "smog" and the word "ozone" are not interchangible, and therefore the article is inaccurate because it uses the words interchagibly.
and
2) The article doesn't talk about levels of ozone and specifying levels of ozone are required to be accurate, therefore the article is inaccurate.
You have also pointed out the following:
4) There is a certain level of naturally occuring ozone.
5) Ozone will eventually combine with other molecules and remove itself from the lower atmosphere naturally.
6) Lots of manmade sources of ozone exist, such as power lines, and electric motors, that aren't specifically from the burning of fossil fuels.
I have already addressed point 1). "Smog" and "ozone air pollution" are close enough in general meaning to be reasonably interchangible.
To prove that this is NOT a reasonable subs ution, you would have to show three things:
a)smog, as it is generally used, usually does NOT include ozone.
b)ozone in general is not a reasonable indicator of the overall level of air pollution from what is commonly accepted as "smog".
c)the author used the word smog in such a way as to outweigh his usage of the correct term "ozone air pollution"
This is a reasonable level of proof that is required for you to "prove" 1).
The best you have done, is to make a half-hearted attempt at proving the third bit, c). You counted the number of times that the word "smog" is used in the article, i.e. six. The part where you go off into dishonesty/laziness, is that you then failed to count the number of times the word "ozone" was used, at sixteen.
The only evidence that you offer for a) is your opinion "Ozone can be a very small component of smog. Smog is not ozone." I noticed that you couched your bit here "can be". I think you are attempting to be intentionally misleading here. "can be a very small component" is not the same as "usually is a very small component".
I have also addressed number 2). Neither the article, nor the report the article was about required an assumption of any level.
This is where you started constructing your strawman:
"We can't believe the author/article/report, because they don't talk about acceptable or dangerous levels."
This is a strawman because the report and the article didn't attempt to set levels or even specify them. The entire premise of the report was whether it was reasonable to include the cost of ozone-related health problems in the cost/benefit analysis of legistation.
Your underlying assumption that "specifying levels of ozone are required to be accurate" is proven to be false by the fact that it is irrelevant to the point the article was making.
In your own words:
and when asked: "Please state the level of ozone you would be comfortable being exposed to for 12 hours out of every 24 for 20 years. "Ozone is probaly the most harmful free radical out there.
You respond:
YOU YOURSELF IMPLY THAT IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE TO INCLUDE THE COSTS OF HEALTH DAMAGE FROM OZONE IN SUCH AN ANALYSIS.I don't know, put it would be in parts per trillion since ozone is so damaging to organic life.
I will get to the rest of it (yet again), later.
This is fun watching you go off.
You know, I don't clearly remember that many posts back, but you still missed where I said levels were important relative to what the white house statement supposable was by the activist 3rd party source.
Now let me remind you of something you seem not to understand. I never said the article was a 100% fabrication, but you treat it as if I said that, arguing about points I don't disagree with. That's why I ignored allot of what you said like what did the report say. I was laughing my ass off all the way. You kept making up arguments between us that didn't exist.
Why do you waste the time with assumptions rather than address the things I have asked about. That's why I get so pissed at you. You assign things I didn't say. You even openly say I meant things I didn't. I can only conclude you purposely avoid all those past unanswered questions because you know I'm right about it. Why else keep changing to arguments that don't matter?
It sure is fun watching such foolish activity.
I don't recall seeing that. I would like to see the context that statement was offered in. I have asked for the context before, but do not recall seeing it? Did I miss something?
Hmm... I do specifically remember reading OMB stuff regarding their position on the issue. Damned if I can remember the link now, though. I will try to find it later today.
Perhaps I didn't post the links in the thread. If so: my apologies.
They are only non-American kids and foreign science, by definition unimportant and irrelevant, but anyway:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...ghway-47061301
You're just butt-hurt becasue I showed quite plainly that you are a liar, and a hack, using your own words.
Have any relavant facts of the issue, or are you just a troll?
You said in your very first post that the article should have been talking about levels.
You went on and on about this, in a lame attempt to spin something you didn't like.
In the end, the report wasn't about levels, it was about whether it was reasonable to assume that one should calculate the benefits of pollution regulation when considering the costs.
You only want to see the costs, and not the benefits. Why is that?
I explained all of that. I'm sorry it doesn't meet your criteria for understanding. I'm not goint to attempt to get through to you again. You are asking all the same things I adressed before.
Please stop wasting my time.
Is it reasonable to calculate the benefits and costs of pollution legislation when considering whether or not to enact it?
Is it reasonable to seek data on past legislation to determine the costs and benefits of that legislation?
Absolutely
Again, Yes. Your point? You don't seen to apply that to the GW question.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
