"The most economically incompetent administration since the Great Depression"

[Dementia_Madness]

Am I? once again you argue (just like with global warming) that one has to be an expert to make an argument or to have an opinion. Let us see also once again you are basing your opinion more on what YOU do not know, rather than what you know, and YOU assume much in order to come to your conclusions. What I am going by is what is easily able to be understood, and checked…historically what has killed most people in developing countries? Somehow YOU make this phenomenal leap that because people use wood burning stoves, it kills them, or shortens their lives….based on what, once again, just like everything else it seems, not what YOU KNOW but what you do not know.
I think perhaps it’s the color of the stoves that kills people, or the place they are placed in the home…we have no studies to disprove this so it’s as good an argument as yours, after all you are probably no shape-ologist….or locationist.


I would hate to go through life letting what I do not know be my guide moreso than the actual knowledge I truly have, and even worse assuimg that just because I am ignorant of soemthing others must be too, unless of course they are "experts" in the subject.

[Just Win]

Am I? once again you argue (just like with global warming) that one has to be an expert to make an argument or to have an opinion. Let us see also once again you are basing your opinion more on what YOU do not know, rather than what you know, and YOU assume much in order to come to your conclusions. What I am going by is what is easily able to be understood, and checked…historically what has killed most people in developing countries? Somehow YOU make this phenomenal leap that because people use wood burning stoves, it kills them, or shortens their lives….based on what, once again, just like everything else it seems, not what YOU KNOW but what you do not know.
I think perhaps it’s the color of the stoves that kills people, or the place they are placed in the home…we have no studies to disprove this so it’s as good an argument as yours, after all you are probably no shape-ologist….or locationist.


I would hate to go through life letting what I do not know be my guide moreso than the actual knowledge I truly have, and even worse assuimg that just because I am ignorant of soemthing others must be too, unless of course they are "experts" in the subject.

How dare you use logic and hold  others accountable! 

[NCVol]

Am I? once again you argue (just like with global warming) that one has to be an expert to make an argument or to have an opinion. Let us see also once again you are basing your opinion more on what YOU do not know, rather than what you know, and YOU assume much in order to come to your conclusions. What I am going by is what is easily able to be understood, and checked…historically what has killed most people in developing countries? Somehow YOU make this phenomenal leap that because people use wood burning stoves, it kills them, or shortens their lives….based on what, once again, just like everything else it seems, not what YOU KNOW but what you do not know.

There really is an odd characteristic with conservatives that opinions backed by nothing are as valid as opinions backed by science.  It's not that I think that only experts are allowed to have an opinion on subjects such as global warming or the health risks to children of breathing smoke in an enclosed space every day for years.  But I actually DO recognize that some people really ARE experts in a particular field, which is why we have specialization and why specialization, having people spend a career advancing knowledge in a tiny sliver of science or the human condition, is a tremendous benefit for mankind and has allowed simply breathtaking advances in science in really a blink of an eye.  And this really wonderful attribute of the modern world means that if I have any respect for science and evidence etc. that I have to rely on those experts as a basis for my opinion.  Otherwise, I'm pretending that ignorance is just as good a basis to form an opinion as years or decades of daily study. 

The bottom line is on this subject, global warming, nuclear power, the technology of solar panels, economics, we are all free to have our own opinions, but if they're not at least informed by the evidence, they're worthless.  If you have any evidence that breathing smoke from a cooking stove isn't harmful, and based on THAT EVIDENCE conclude that there is no need for these damn stoves, that's GREAT. But what is really absurd is simply stating, "I don't believe it!" 

In this case, you've presented exactly ZERO evidence that these stoves don't harm people.  Nothing.  Zilch. Nada.  And you conclude, based on this nothing evidence, that breathing smoke in a closed area every day for years has no effect on lifespan, does not in fact contribute to the lung disease that your own link says kills hundreds of thousands in the developing world.  I don't get that thought process.  It basically says your baseless, factless, evidence free conclusion is just as legitimate as the opinions of people who have spent a large part of a career studying the conditions of the third world, what kills them and what we can do to alleviate some small part of the disease and death that plagues them. 

It's sort of a hostility to science and evidence, really, and I simply don't understand it.  When there is competing evidence, or conflicting evidence, then I suppose we should have some way to evaluate the competing claims.  For me, I go with people who are most expert in the field and have a track record of excellence in that field versus know nothing ideologues or my own preferred opinions.  Seems rational.  When experts with a proven expertise and a track record of excellence disagree, as is the case in some elements of GW, then it might in fact come down to other factors.  In GW, for example, the solutions to this problem if it exists are desirable for many other reasons besides warming, so I favor policies favored by the GW crowd, without having a strong opinion on whether the feedback loops will prevent catastrophic warming. 

I think perhaps it’s the color of the stoves that kills people, or the place they are placed in the home…we have no studies to disprove this so it’s as good an argument as yours, after all you are probably no shape-ologist….or locationist.

That's ridiculous.  We know breathing smoke KILLS PEOPLE.  Nobody disputes, for example, that smoking causes cancer or contributes to lung disease.  Denying that is stupid based on the mountains of evidence.  We have studies that show these stoves kill people because they result in daily breathing of smoke, and the results are as we would expect given what we know about the harmful effects of smoking.  If you want to contest the studies, you should have some basis other than "I don't WANT to believe them." 

There is no evidence anywhere in any field that color kills people. 

I would hate to go through life letting what I do not know be my guide moreso than the actual knowledge I truly have, and even worse assuimg that just because I am ignorant of soemthing others must be too, unless of course they are "experts" in the subject.

FWIW, I have no idea ahead of time if you're ignorant about stoves.  But you present no evidence, and come to a conclusion without citing any basis at all for it.  Normally people who are experts say things like, "Stoves aren't a problem and here's how we know.  1) ......  2) .......  In fact people use these stoves in ...... and don't suffer from lung disease.... here's the difference.......  The lung disease that kills hundreds of thousands in these developing regions is caused by ...... and has no correlation with the amount of indoor cooking over a wood stove the cultures do. "

See, that's the KIND of statement a real expert could make.  You did none of that. And when I'm confronted with the opinions of experts versus baseless opinions, I'd be a stupid fool for thinking those two are equivalent choices and I can go with either conclusion, whichever suits me at the moment. 

[LTC]

d   m's is a conservative thinker....this is conservative thinking...led by rick berman....the guy who says mercury in the fish we eat is good....tanning beds are good for you....the Humane Society is bad....trans fat cleans out your arteries...and more idiocy!

Rachel Maddow Right wing culture warriors attack Michelle Obama

[Dementia_Madness]

[LTC]

I grew up with George Burns and Gracie Allen...and d  m....you are no George Burns!  But you are about as confused as Gracie!

[The One Man Gang]

Still waiting ...

[LTC]

For what? your brain to work?  Never happen!

[Dementia_Madness]

OMG that one will not get and does not undertand because it went directly over his head.....the other may, but I wont bet on it.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Still waiting ...

Yeah, and you can keep waiting until the cows come home. No one is interested in replying to your idiocy.

[The One Man Gang]

... and still waiting.

All it takes is one, boys.

[Just Win]

Still waiting ...

The crickets are rather loud to night.