Shots Across The Bow

The reason I picked 1999 was because that's the data I had in a spreadsheet for a previous post that was available at the time. I don't think TVA had all the annual data on their website at that time.

I believe the post you are referring to now (misspellings and all) was quite balanced, especially given my feelings about TVA, and gives TVA credit where credit is due.

And if you don't think Bush is trying (or already has) relaxed emission control regulations, you haven't been paying attention.

And as usual, you seem to be "cherry picking" comments to pick on.

OK, you chose 1999 somewhat at random; the fact that it happened to be the historical low for emissions is a coincidence. In light of the additional information I've provided, do you still think that the TVA data suggests that the Bush administration is damaging the environment? That is the statement that set off this little exercise.

Now, if by 'cherry picking', you mean 'commenting on posts that are factually in error', then I'm guilty as charged.

But I don't "pick on" posts. That has connotations of unfair harrassment, or bullying tactics. I do analyze the facts and logic behind the post and if those facts or logic come up lacking, I will point out the flaws.

I admit I don't comment on your satire, or purely opinion pieces because opinions are not really subject to factual analysis. But when you provide a factual basis for that opinion, and the facts aren't correct, then I've something to work with.

Such was the case here.

So, you monitor my site for errors and "something to work with"? You and Bill seem to have a strange obsession with trashing SKB and whatever he might say today. Not that I'm complaining, I appreciate the traffic. And It seems to be a popular sport. :) LOL! (Is that the proper term?)

Anyway, which fact that I posted was in error? At any rate, I believe my post said that this may only be anecdotal evidence and that there might be other factors in play. (Of course, you left that part out, as you frequently do when quoting SKB, along with the props I gave TVA for reducing emissions at their diritest plants, but of course, you're not "cherry picking" to show that it's all Clinton's fault). You have suggested one other factor possibly in play with regard to increased emissions at some plants. I have suggested another. And you have completely ignored the increased CO2 emissions across the board. But as I recall you thing global warning is junk science, so I guess I can understand that.

Also, do you deny that Bush has weakened the "Clean Air" legislation with his "Clear Skies" proposals? Have you followed it? Do you deny that regulations in the 70's have had a clearly beneficial affect on emissions as shown by TVA's own data? Or do you attribute that to TVA's altruism?

Further, from a "loyal opposition" point of view, can you enumarate what Bush has done for the environment? Can you explain to us how the Bush administration policies promote cleaner air? I'd be very interested and if you can prove it I might even vote for him!

(P.S. The 1999 data wasn't "random". As I said, it was what was avialable at the time I started tracking this in a spreadsheet).

P.S. I notice you use the term "environmentalist" with the same disdain as you use "liberal".

So, can we infer that you care as little about the environment as you do poor, disenfranchised, underpriveleged people?

Again, I'd really like to see your "series of data points" that shows how the GOP has helped improve the environment. Or anything else.

No, I read your site because it's entertaining and informative. I respond when I am moved to, weither in agreement or disagreement. I'm not trashing SKB. I kinda like the guy myself. I do take on your arguments when they're flawed. Look at it this way; when I expose a flaw in your argument, either factual or analytical, you can do one of three things
A) Ignore the problem and keep repeating the same faulty accusations

B) Modify your position to include the new information, resulting in a stronger position, less vulnerable to attack

or

C) Develop a new argument which supports your position which doesn't contain the flaw.

Since you're smart enough not to choose A, you end up with a stronger argument. See, I'm just trying to help!*grin*(Yes, LOL is the correct term, but I like using real words. I'm old fashioned that way.)

Your error in this post was analytical rather than factual, as you reasoned without good data. I just accessed all the data, and determined your argument, that recent TVA emissions proved that Bush was bad for the environment, was not supported by the data set you invoked, ie TVA emissions data.

No, I don't include a response to every point of your posts because when do, Barry B. says it puts him to sleep, and I try to be sensitive to the needs of our senior citizens.*ducking* More to the point, if your argument is sound, I don't attack it. The world is not a binary construct; there's room for differing opinions based on the same set of facts.

And even though I could construct a case from this set of data that Bush has continued Clinton's record, besting him in almost every catagory, I specifically did not, because there isn't enough data to make that claim. The most that can be said with a reasonably sure degree of confidence is that Bush's numbers to this point are commensurate with Clinton's.

Yes, I left out CO2 emissions because 1) as you know, I've discussed that area fairly exhaustively in the past, and 2) it wasn't part of your justification for the quote I disagreed with.

Environmental regulations, including the Clean Air act, have tremendously improved our air and water. I do not deny that Bush's revisions of the Clean Air act weaken some of those protections. But what I can't say is whether that is entirely a bad thing. It has to do with diminishing returns.

In any system, you reach a point where the cost for a given amount of improvement increases dramatically. I think we've reached that point in our environmental policies. As far as I know, the Clean Air act doesn't rescind any protective measures; it doesn't allow plants to pollute more. What it does is permit existing plants to continue at the same level, rather than reducing emissions further. New plants are still subject to the more stringent abatement measures.

This appears to me to be a reasonable approach when trying to allocate finite resources. The proof will be in the reaction of the environment. If the air gets worse over several years, we'll need to reassess the situation. If the air quality remains the same or continues to improve, then we're in good shape. Based on the dramatic improvement already achieved, I don't believe that we'll see a marked worsening in air quality over the next 10 years.

Ahhh crap! Barry B.'s snoring on his keyboard again!