[FoRK] Bush's tanking approval ratings
jbone at place.org
Tue Apr 12 09:59:26 PDT 2005
On Apr 12, 2005, at 11:55 AM, Karl Anderson wrote:
> Right, the WHO study was a *study*, not a smoking gun. Go ahead and
> call it nonsense because you don't want to believe it, but please, in
> the future, start by saying "I CAN'T HEAR YOU NA NA NA NA".
Karl, my issue here is that you make a broad assertion and then back it
up by citing a sketchy study --- no doubt politically motivated ---
from a source (the WHO) that is, in its own right, questionable.
(Don't you think there's a question of motivation *inherent* in such
studies when they come from politically-motivated sources rather than
IMHO, this kind of thing is just as credible as, for example, some of
the "studies" (always commissioned by right-wing political interests)
supporting a putative connection between abortion and rates of
incidence of breast cancer. To wit, *not* credible at all, simply by
virtue of the above. It's an unfortunate but pragmatic reality that
some input should be screened out simply by virtue of its provenance.
IMHO, "studies" from / commissioned by the WHO fall into that category.
And for the record: there are other studies --- I'll mention them
anecdotally, I'm not citing them as authoritative --- that suggest that
the total impact of ALL auto emissions on the environment and on public
health pales in comparison to the impact of industrial, power
generation, air travel, and other such emissions. And given that,
those sources of pollution (common sensically) are *far* more likely to
be a contributor to any respiratory, cardiac, and other illnesses that
*might* be tied to air quality.
More information about the FoRK