Freddy, you are still throwing so many discussions over the last week or so into the same post that I think they need to be separated out. I tried to explain last time that we are, first, discussing two kinds of debates--formal ones, and discussions with emotions behind them where we cite statistics that we hope will prove our points. The CATO Institute statistics figured into what was really an emotional disagreement about the planet.
I pointed out LOTS of problems with the statistics from the Cato Institute. Since I, too, am a libertarian, just as I, too, spent a ton of time in Los Angeles, I am not attacking an enemy or anything on either of these issues. But they are indeed different issues. Let's just talk about SIDS, okay?
You seem to be saying that everything is statistical noise. If you are not, then what are you saying? Study results are OFTEN released without cause and effect already determined. That does not invalidate the study. I think we need to stay in the present, also. Very little was understood, or studied, about SIDS thirty years ago. Why do historical statistics from Pittsburgh need to be brought in?
The data from the study I am talking about, after adjustments for all other known risk factors, determined that exactly as levels of OUTSIDE air pollution rise in cities, the per capita incidence of SIDS rises as well.
Are you saying that this is mere coincidence? Can you suggest another reason besides air pollution for the difference? I don't believe you have clearly stated that you believe air pollution is harmful. Could we agree on that? Nor have you clearly stated whether you believe that outside air pollution affects indoor air quality, or whether you admit that not all infants spend similar large chunks of their time indoors.
I think the whole point here is that you are showing off sophisticated reasoning skills that do not really need to be brought into a debate about something so simple, and you are doing this to try to confuse me (not difficult)! I am trying to learn here, but I am not THAT stupid.
|
