|
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
|
 |
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
|
|

Dec 5th, 2003, 12:12 PM
I know it was in your article. It's unsuported. An economoist saying
"Today, air is cleaner than it has been since 1585." is of absoluetly zero imperical worth.
"Today, the air has more monkey liver in it than it has since 1585."
I said that. Feel free to quote me as if it means something.
Your second argument shows you either don't understand science or as usual made a 'provocative' statement you knew was virtually without merit because in some way you think it makes you charming instead of a weiner.
At very, very best ( and this is conceding an awful lot, since your author doesn't bother to site his sources) that over London, a population center that for a great deal of it's history relied solely on burning coal for energy (since forests have been depleted around London since well before the fifteenth century) has less coal related pollutants in it than today. You extrapolate London to everywhere, which is something I doubt even this idiot would ever think of doing, and London may well be the worst city on earth (becuase of it's age and reliance on coal) on the planet to make this comparison based on. Try the same study in Beijing, LA, Moscow, Tokyo or anywhere else and then get back to me. The key faulty phrase? "adjusted to measured pollution". What does he mean? Adjusted per capita to relative population? That could mean that the air is actually dirtier today, there are just more people. Adjusted for other pollutants? Whichh ones? "Estimated from coal imports" is also not empirical, although it's a good place to start an argument. It's what scientists would call a secondary indicator and it's okay for a reason to set up experiments. It doesn't 'show' anything about smoke or sulphur, it indicates a good reason to look for it. It's like saying purchase records from Macdoanlds show obesity.
Rabid left wingers who convert to rabid right wingers are not any reason to view their science seriously. My guess? This guys science was crap when he was a left winger, becuase it's certainly crap now.
I think you site crap like this under the guise of "I just wannted to make you think" which is a very convenient way of hiding your extreme credulity.
|
|
|
|