DanG
-
Content
6,580 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by DanG
-
I personally support his desire to transition to a non-fossil fuel economy. I really don't see how eliminating oil and coal subsidies would result in the destruction of the country, but I see how you could be opposed to it. Since these tax subsidy eliminations have yet to occur, and you used the past tense when you claimed he has destroyed our country, do you have anything else? And yes, I read the part about the drilling moritorium. I really don't believe that 10 oil rigs leaving the gulf region is enough to destroy America. Maybe you disagree. - Dan G
-
Believe it or not, I completely agree with you. That's why I'm taken aback when other posters say thinks like, "Obama has destroyed the country." - Dan G
-
"OK" meant, "OK, I see your point," not, "I'm okay with everything Obama has done and want to suck his dick." Chill out. - Dan G
-
OK, so what has Obama done that has destroyed our nation? That was my original question. - Dan G
-
I've never claimed it was all Bush's fault. I don't think he helped anything, but that doesn't mean it was "all Bush's fault". I think it is undeniable that the war in Iraq was not good for the budget. It's also undeniable that any influence Bush may have had started 11 years ago. Obama's influence started 3 years ago, so the immediacy of the effect is certainly a factor. - Dan G
-
It seems to me the only "ill defined law" that people don't like is the healthcare law. Do you really believe requiring people to buy health insurance is all it takes to destroy our great nation? I have more faith in America than that. - Dan G
-
How did people so stupid as to believe the President has an immediate impact on the economy end up with a lot of capital? - Dan G
-
Care to elaborate? - Dan G
-
Okay, why would he have to be timeless? Why couldn't he have created the universe in such a way that we can't perceive time before the Big Bang, but he can? - Dan G
-
This. - Dan G
-
I object. Why must the creator be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial? If you assume this, then there's no point in going any further. You just assumed God. - Dan G
-
Not the same as calling gun owners with children nutters. Perhaps, but I doubt it. Which is why I said, "Doubt it." - Dan G
-
No, no one said it yet. Which is the fucking point. - Dan G
-
I was hoping for some backup on the very, very simple math, but you're right, there's really no point. - Dan G
-
Someone, anyone, please help me!!! - Dan G
-
I apologize for breaking my self-imposed ban on ever responding to you. It won't happen again. - Dan G
-
Can someone else please explain this? I've already tried repeatedly. - Dan G
-
There's a huge difference between advocating securing your guns, and claiming anyone who has guns in the house is a nutter. A modicum of sense-fu would have saved you some face. - Dan G
-
According to your author, not according to the scientists who wrote the paper. The rate of change with a given increase in particulates, not the death rate itself. Didn't you claim somewhere to have a Six Sigma Black Belt? Why is this so hard for you to understand? - Dan G
-
I never said that the EPA isn't claiming that more deaths (~1%) will result from a 10ppm increase in PM2.5. Clearly they are. What I said was that showing a Chinese study that claimed a 10ppm increase in 2.5PM in a certain city in China resulted in a 0.26% increase in deaths does not refute the EPA claims. For instance, if the 10ppm increase discussed in the EPA study represented a 40% increase in particulate matter, while the same increase in the Chinese study represented a 10% increase, then the studies would actually be confirming each other (assuming that a linear relationship was the hypothesis). If the math is not clear, that's because it's not as simple as your author tries to make it. You've fallen into his sound bite trap. I'm just trying to point out that his trap doesn't bear up to even cursory scrutiny. - Dan G
-
When someone actually posts that, your argument will no longer be a strawman. Until then, it might as well be singing, "If I Only Had a Brain." - Dan G
-
I really think you should at least read the abstracts of the papers you cite. You're not making any sense. - Dan G
-
What? I don't think you understood my first post. I also am amazed, pleasantly, that you are posting links to studies that show air pollution is a serious health problem. Good for you. - Dan G
-
I dunno, maybe she's statistically accurate. Seems hard to believe, but if the number of deaths attributed to particulates are the same those attributed to cancer, then she's correct. - Dan G
-
Sure is. Conclusions: - Dan G