re: Shows a narrower range of estimates than the previous study

Current Events » in reply to Shows a narrower range of estimates than the previous study

re: Shows a narrower range of estimates than the previous study

Tom Brosz — 10/11/2006 6:52:46 PM (archived)

So what is wrong with their methods and figures, exactly?

The short answer is that they don't match any reasonable observations of the facts. That this is so easily overlooked here explains a lot.

The whole thread (38 posts)

Johns Hopkins/Lancet pull another number out of their asses. - Tom Brosz - 10/11/2006 4:07:44 AM
- Another study for comparison - Tom Brosz - 10/12/2006 4:01:32 AM
  - Well... - Laurie Street - 10/12/2006 6:30:33 AM
    - re: Well... - Tom Brosz - 10/12/2006 10:37:41 PM
      - Exact meanings - Laurie Street - 10/13/2006 1:58:29 AM
- Considering no nukes, WMDs, no al-Qaeda no link to WTC - how many is too many? (n/t) - Bowser - 10/11/2006 6:49:21 PM
  - The "doesn't matter if it isn't true, the truth is bad enough" defense. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 10/11/2006 6:54:03 PM
    - Please do NOT say it doesn't matter. How many innocent lives is too many innocent lives? (n/t) - Bowser - 10/11/2006 7:20:38 PM
- Link to actual study - Tom Brosz - 10/11/2006 5:35:40 PM
  - Shows a narrower range of estimates than the previous study - Laurie Street - 10/11/2006 6:28:30 PM
    - re: Shows a narrower range of estimates than the previous study - Tom Brosz - 10/11/2006 6:52:46 PM
      - re: Shows a narrower range of estimates than the previous study - Laurie Street - 10/11/2006 7:06:04 PM
  - Thanks - Robert - 10/11/2006 6:10:57 PM
    - Inconsistency - Tom Brosz - 10/11/2006 6:39:33 PM
      - Argument by incredulity - Robert - 10/11/2006 8:25:46 PM
        
        re: Argument by incredulity - Tom Brosz - 10/12/2006 1:46:58 AM
        
        "Perspective"? - Robert - 10/12/2006 3:05:41 AM
        
        "Yeah, it's probably BS but we need to do some real studies." I'll settle for that. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 10/12/2006 3:47:54 AM
        
        See also "another study for comparison" above. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 10/12/2006 4:02:59 AM
        
        Please do (n/t) - Laurie Street - 10/12/2006 3:51:04 PM
      - re: Inconsistency - Laurie Street - 10/11/2006 7:20:55 PM
        
        re: Inconsistency - Tom Brosz - 10/11/2006 7:56:47 PM
        
        au contraire - Laurie Street - 10/11/2006 9:57:17 PM
      - Six Fallujahs - Mary Anne - 10/11/2006 7:11:25 PM
  - OK, thanks. I'll read it. (n/t) - Mary Anne - 10/11/2006 5:58:49 PM
- That's nothing. Remember the ONE MILLION IRAQI CHILDREN who supposedly died due to the sanctions? - David F Mayer - 10/11/2006 5:33:48 PM
  - People may be a little busy to dig up bodies of dead children for forensic investigation. - Mary Anne - 10/11/2006 10:23:15 PM
- Does it make you feel better, Tom... - Laurie Street - 10/11/2006 3:29:58 PM
- What should be disturbing.... - Donald - 10/11/2006 12:47:00 PM
- Cluster surveys, used in this study, are routinely used to determine rates of death in natural disasters. - Mary Anne - 10/11/2006 12:17:11 PM
  - re: Cluster surveys, used in this study, are routinely used to determine rates of death in natural disasters. - Tom Brosz - 10/11/2006 4:30:27 PM
    - The first point is a problem. Who are the authorities? - Mary Anne - 10/11/2006 4:52:57 PM
      - re: Who are the authorities? - Tom Brosz - 10/11/2006 5:34:04 PM
        
        We'll see. - Mary Anne - 10/11/2006 5:55:17 PM
        
        re: We'll see. - Tom Brosz - 10/11/2006 6:50:02 PM
        
        You know, I hear that same definition of "peer review" from creationists. - Mary Anne - 10/11/2006 7:16:06 PM
        
        I also still haven't read the thing yet, and won't as long as I'm arguing with you. - Mary Anne - 10/11/2006 7:17:38 PM
- Got any idea why Bush & Co. don't keep track of Iraqi deaths? - Bowser - 10/11/2006 6:37:04 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (38 posts)