The U.N. study also used the term "war-related."

A study claiming a factor of ten increase over every other source has the burden of proof on it, not the rest of them. A factor of ten over the United Nations' own reports, the NGO reports, anti-war sites, all of them.

I am continuously lambasted with the "consensus" argument in environmental discussions. We are looking at one study that disagrees with everything else, and you latch on to it because it's what you want to hear? Do I get away with that here when I post a contradictory study on global warming? No, I'm told that more studies have said something else, and usually, that the guy who did the study is biased so it isn't worth commenting on.

Go figure.

I've already gone over the numbers compared to actual occurrences on the ground.

The argument from incredulity is perfectly acceptable if someone tells you they have a full-grown bull elephant in a shoebox. Only an idiot would say you had to weigh the shoebox first.