Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-14-2010, 08:33 AM
 
10,719 posts, read 20,307,778 times
Reputation: 10021

Advertisements

I'm criticizing people's approach not their level of knowledge. Anyone is capable of forming opinions based on facts. Some people choose to form conclusions based on theories. The Heat Island Effect is a theory not a fact. Yet some choose to interpret it as a fact and then base conclusions on it. People have an opinion and then they search for some source to support their opinion even if that source is just a theory. Case in point, people want to believe that Phoenix is getting hotter each year. The Heat Island Effect supports their opinion so they cite it regardless if the Heat Island Effect is factual. Accuracy and objectivity matter little to them and they merely want to be right as opposed to seeking the truth, therefore they will cite any source regardless if that source is a theory and not a fact. People who seek the truth are not seeking a particular outcome and base their impression on the facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2010, 09:31 AM
 
2,942 posts, read 6,520,818 times
Reputation: 1214
Quote:
Weather Observer? This?
define:Weather observer - Google Search
Uh, no. My weather observing had to do with aviation.

Quote:
What does that have to do with ecology? Do you observe pollution too?
Nothing, other than giving me a good foundation of understanding when discussing the heat island effect theory.

Quote:
Anyone is capable of forming opinions based on facts. Some people choose to form conclusions based on theories. The Heat Island Effect is a theory not a fact. Yet some choose to interpret it as a fact and then base conclusions on it. People have an opinion and then they search for some source to support their opinion even if that source is just a theory. Case in point, people want to believe that Phoenix is getting hotter each year. The Heat Island Effect supports their opinion so they cite it regardless if the Heat Island Effect is factual. Accuracy and objectivity matter little to them and they merely want to be right as opposed to seeking the truth, therefore they will cite any source regardless if that source is a theory and not a fact. People who seek the truth are not seeking a particular outcome and base their impression on the facts.
I completely agree, well said!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2010, 10:17 AM
 
3,886 posts, read 10,085,074 times
Reputation: 1486
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan. View Post
I'm criticizing people's approach not their level of knowledge. Anyone is capable of forming opinions based on facts. Some people choose to form conclusions based on theories. The Heat Island Effect is a theory not a fact. Yet some choose to interpret it as a fact and then base conclusions on it. People have an opinion and then they search for some source to support their opinion even if that source is just a theory. Case in point, people want to believe that Phoenix is getting hotter each year. The Heat Island Effect supports their opinion so they cite it regardless if the Heat Island Effect is factual. Accuracy and objectivity matter little to them and they merely want to be right as opposed to seeking the truth, therefore they will cite any source regardless if that source is a theory and not a fact. People who seek the truth are not seeking a particular outcome and base their impression on the facts.
No, my theory is that you are criticizing people and enjoying it, as for your facts, what facts exactly made you realize that the "Forbes" rankings were more reliable than the "American Lung Assoc", or any other ranking system? I mean, a money mag doesn't exactly scream "fact" to most people.
define:Forbes Magazine - Google Search
define:American Lung Association - Google Search
What about all the other rankings, none match up completely. So this whole thread is based on your "opinion" of Forbes magazine. Not fact, just a stat to which there are many. The only fact to this thread is that you express your opinions of Forbes rankings as fact. Explain to me your opinion on why the Forbes ranking is the ranking Arizonians should go by. Then one might begin to understand this thread and not see it as simple "trolling" for an argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2010, 11:08 AM
 
2,942 posts, read 6,520,818 times
Reputation: 1214
This is there methodology:
Methodology - Forbes.com
Do you disagree?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2010, 03:20 PM
 
3,886 posts, read 10,085,074 times
Reputation: 1486
Air Quality Facts - American Lung Association (http://www.stateoftheair.org/2010/facts/ - broken link)

That Methodology doesn't explain why I should believe their rankings over the numerous others. Does my link convince you that the AML Assoc. cares more about your health than Forbes? Probably not! That would be up to you, so before you all call the kettle black I would review your own opinions and realize they are as trivial as the rest of ours. The only thing that link showed me is that as I assumed it gathers 1/2 it's facts from businesses that REPORT that they pollute, what about the ones who don't report it? Well, lets see, it's a business mag and what exactly would be their interest? I doubt they would try and discourage business anywhere because of pollution or any other reason would they. That would be my opinion based on what I feel is common sense.
I'm still wanting to know why I should believe the rankings in Forbes over any other? Why is it the "truth"? I think it boils down to the dreaded "opinion" again. Which we are all guilty of on here. Get over yourselves already. Phoenix has pollution, it's a big city, we can speculate why, some can swear they know, but the reality it's either you will work to minimize it or you will ignore it, that would be up to the individual and their opinion of pollution. Be it man given, or a natural occurrence.
My only point, which I wouldn't have made until you all made it a topic related is that nothing any of you say is anything but your lay mans opinion including me, thats it. It's like trying to convince a Republican to become a Democrat or a Catholic to become a Jew. It most likely won't serve any purpose. If you agree with someone's opinion great, but, if you are going to join together and assault someone because of theirs, then you better be prepared to back it up with an explanation of why I should believe what Forbes magazine says over any other publication of statistics regarding my city. When you call out someone then I would hope you first have made sure what you say doesn't contain any opinion you are trying to state as fact. Such as your opinion on Forbes magazines ranking of Phoenix's pollution. Don't you think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2010, 04:44 PM
 
2,942 posts, read 6,520,818 times
Reputation: 1214
Quote:
That would be up to you, so before you all call the kettle black
When did I do that? I think someone needs to calm down a bit....

Quote:
I assumed
Yeah.

Quote:
Phoenix has pollution, it's a big city, we can speculate why, some can swear they know, but the reality it's either you will work to minimize it or you will ignore it
You can also exaggerate it.

Quote:
nothing any of you say is anything but your lay mans opinion including me
Some of the "lay men" may be more knowledgable with some aspects than others....

Quote:
if you are going to join together and assault someone because of theirs, then you better be prepared to back it up with an explanation of why I should believe what Forbes magazine says over any other publication of statistics regarding my city.
Nobody ganged up on you. It's just that more people on here seem to disagree with you than agree with you. Do you have a problem with that? Are we not allowed to express our opinions just as much as you, even if they are opposite opinions? Or should only those who agree with you be allowed to post?
BTW, the only things you've said are "wrong" with the Forbes magazine article is that 1) it comes from a business and 2) it slightly contradicts some other study you hold dear. Other than that, you don't seem to find faults with their actual findings or methodology. If you want to refute it, you'll need to try harder.

Quote:
I would hope you first have made sure what you say doesn't contain any opinion you are trying to state as fact.
Where are your "facts"? Seems like a double standard.....

Quote:
Get over yourselves already.
Same to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2010, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Edmonds, WA
8,975 posts, read 10,224,972 times
Reputation: 14252
This is another EXTREMELY misleading study. If you actually look at the study, it doesn't even list the cities themselves, but the metro areas. Sometimes they use the city as a basis for measurement, sometimes they don't. Why? They don't say.

For example, when they count the number of EPA reports they only use the principal city, but for the # of pounds released into the atmosphere they appear to count the whole metro area. Seems a little shady to me. For example, Chicago's metro area spans three states and the city itself is only a very small portion of this metro area.

It seems neither fair nor accurate to categorize a city based on it's MSA, but if they're going to do it they should at least be consistent about it. And I think if Forbes used the city proper as the uniform basis of measurement this list would look very different.

These lists make for a good attention-getter, but that's about it IMHO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2010, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Edmonds, WA
8,975 posts, read 10,224,972 times
Reputation: 14252
They also assume that everytime the EPA responds to a report, it is automatically a hazardous site. I care more about the ACTUAL NUMBER of hazardous sites, not about the number of EPA responses. Not very helpful.

Methodology - Forbes.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2010, 05:20 PM
 
2,942 posts, read 6,520,818 times
Reputation: 1214
Quote:
when they count the number of EPA reports they only use the principal city, but for the # of pounds released into the atmosphere they appear to count the whole metro area. Seems a little shady to me. For example, Chicago's metro area spans three states and the city itself is only a very small portion of this metro area.
Here's where they talk about it:
Glossary: OMB-Designated Geographic Areas - Forbes.com

Just so I understand correctly, you believe the study is flawed because it is unfair to compare a large metro area to a small metro area (for example, Chicago metro compared to Portland metro) because the larger metro would naturally have more pollution than the smaller one. Is that correct?

If that is true, you'd think N.Y.C. would be #1 on the list and L.A. #2, but that isn't so. L.A. is #7 and N.Y.C. is #31 (tied). Phoenix should also be much higher (not #31) and places like Detroit (#2), Cleveland (#6), Jacksonville (#8), Portland (#10), Milwaukee (#12), Orlando (#13), Charlotte (#14), Kansas City (#15), etc, etc, should be much, much lower.


But if you notice, they all say "metro". I'm not sure where it doesn't say "metro".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2010, 05:23 PM
 
2,942 posts, read 6,520,818 times
Reputation: 1214
This is what the "methodology" says:
Quote:
Facilities in these industries, or that report using significant amounts of toxic chemicals, are required by law to report annually on the releases of those chemicals into the environment. For our rankings, we used two measures based on the TRI: the total number of facilities in each MSA that reported toxic releases, and the amount, in pounds, of toxic releases in each MSA in 2007.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2022 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top