Runaway Global Warming Possible!

bill wrote:
3% (what they used) would work, but not clustered, 1 bomb in the
wrong place can blow the whole study, as in the case of the falujah
data. I also have to wonder about the wording of the polling itself.
studies have shown that a poll will invariably make the case the
pollster wants made.
Generally, my own personal statistical estimation method is to
take all of the different studies and take the average of them. that's
leading me to say that we have killed around 45000 people who didn't
deserve it. that's quite a lot, and that's unfortunate. I do wonder
about the 1,000,000 kurds sadam is said to have killed, and the
$500,000 he gave to the families of the 9-11 hijackers, and the
standing $20,000 he gave to the family of ANY suicide bomber in israel,
but hey, what's a few suicide bombings between friends?

Since the studies measure different things, that's quite the trick.
While you are at it you might count the Kurds killed by Turkey and those
killed by Iran to figure out who the winner is.

josh halpern

bill wrote:

Generally, my own personal statistical estimation method is to
take all of the different studies and take the average of them.

Not a good idea... as the don't have equal weight, but worse don't
even overlap!

Sam Wormley wrote:
bill wrote:

Generally, my own personal statistical estimation method is to
take all of the different studies and take the average of them.

Not a good idea... as the don't have equal weight, but worse don't
even overlap!

A rather more fundamental problem is that the different studies do not
even pretend to measure the same thing.

James

In article .com,
"bill" wrote:
3% (what they used) would work, but not clustered, 1 bomb in the
wrong place can blow the whole study, as in the case of the falujah
data. I also have to wonder about the wording of the polling itself.
studies have shown that a poll will invariably make the case the
pollster wants made.
Generally, my own personal statistical estimation method is to
take all of the different studies and take the average of them. that's
leading me to say that we have killed around 45000 people who didn't
deserve it. that's quite a lot, and that's unfortunate. I do wonder
about the 1,000,000 kurds sadam is said to have killed, and the
$500,000 he gave to the families of the 9-11 hijackers, and the
standing $20,000 he gave to the family of ANY suicide bomber in israel,
but hey, what's a few suicide bombings between friends?


The Saudi royal family raised funds for the families of suicide bombers
too. Back in the 1940s, the French resistance organized suicide attacks
against the Nazi occupiers. Were the French suicide bombers terrorists?

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 05 09:41:16 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

The Saudi royal family raised funds for the families of suicide bombers
too.

What's your point? We already know that the Saudis are the roots of
modern radical Islam.

My point is, Bush calls them our friends. Yet they teach hatred of the
west in their schools, most of the 9/11 terrorists came from there. Yet we
invaded Iraq, which never attacked nor threatened us and was a secular
nation.


Back in the 1940s, the French resistance organized suicide attacks
against the Nazi occupiers. Were the French suicide bombers terrorists?

Who were their targets? If the targets were military, then no.

So the hijackers who crashed the plane into the Pentagon were not
terrorists?

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 05 09:37:36 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

when you are losing a debate, the opponent must be "just
spouting
the party line"

Well, you all do sound alike. First it was WMD. Then WMD programs.
Now
we really went there to free the Iraqi people.

It was always all of those things, and more. You were apparently too
busy drooling at Democratic Underground to be paying attention.

Gee, I don't remember Powell going before the UN with a major dog and
pony show and lots of slides and satellite pictures depicting Saddam's
human rights violations.

Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,
Supported al Qaeda
Agree with Kerry Supporters Bush Administration Still Saying This is
the Case
Agree US Should Not Have Gone to War if No WMD or Support for al Qaeda
Bush Supporters Misperceive World Public as Not Opposed to Iraq War,
Favoring Bush Reelection
Program on International Policy Attitudes,
University of Maryland
October 21, 2004
Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that
Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters
continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program
for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts
believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that
Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry
supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was
providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear
evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush
supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and
55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11
Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have
exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing
perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on
International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls
conducted in September and October.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush
supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush
administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on
which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush
supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD
(63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say
that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial
support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear
the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush
administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74%
that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to
these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not
matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in
agreement with Kerry supporters." Asked whether the US should have gone
to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not
making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters
said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the
President would not have. Kull continues, "To support the president and
to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions
likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush
supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar
Iraq."



Do you all have a manual
you read from?

Yes, it's called "reality." People who all tell the truth tend to
sound alike...

bill wrote:
investigating anthropogenic climate change = Bush bashing.
willful ignorance of any bad effects of your actions = Bush support

The democrat position:
Whatever bush is diong is bad therefore any defenders of any of
his individual actions it are "just spouting the party line"
Deliberately inflating controvercial numbers to make bush look
bad
= sensible investigation
when you are losing a debate, the opponent must be "just
spouting
the party line"
there have been many good points made here by both sides, I see
the right respecting the left's positions, and the left failing
miserably to do likewise.
this is why I wind up defending someone I see as
scum-of-the-earth, because the liberal "party line" does not
acknowledge truth when it lands in their lap. whereas the republican
does.
and z, did it ever occur to you to take a look at your own
positions?

Yes, I must consider this new data:
"We continue to discover biological and chemical weapons and facilities
to make them inside Iraq."
California Rep. Chris Cox
Conservative Political Action Conference
Feb. 19 2005

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 05 14:57:01 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Back in the 1940s, the French resistance organized suicide attacks
against the Nazi occupiers. Were the French suicide bombers
terrorists?

Who were their targets? If the targets were military, then no.

So the hijackers who crashed the plane into the Pentagon were not
terrorists?

Considering that they slit the the throats of innocent flight
attendants, and deliberately murdered everyone on the plane, I'd say
so. It wasn't just a suicide mission--it was deliberate mass murder
of civilians.

So if they had taken a private plane, with just the perpetrators on board,
and crashed that into the Pentagon, a military target, they wouldn't be
terrorists?

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:24:02 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ian St.
John" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

snip all sci.* other than space.policy

Yes, actually. Baby Assad is quite the dim bulb, compared to his
smarter (if even more ruthless) father.

Ahhh...the parallels....parallels....the horror....

Not really. Both Bush pere and fil are quite intelligent, but the
former didn't seem to have any firm principles.

At what point did you lose your mind?

I'll tell you that as soon as you tell me when you'll stop pimping
little boys.

P.S. If Syria *had* assassinated
Hiriri in order to stay in Lebanon, their willingness to leave Lebanon,
under pressure from.. the U.S. would be a bit odd.

We don't know if such "willingness" exists. Oh, you mean you take
them at their word?

How amusing...

rest of lunacy snipped

For those who aren't paranoid delusionists, here're a couple good
up-to-date rundowns of what's going on with Syria.

http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/056941.html

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006387.php

On Fri, 25 Feb 05 09:41:16 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

The Saudi royal family raised funds for the families of suicide bombers
too.

What's your point? We already know that the Saudis are the roots of
modern radical Islam.

Back in the 1940s, the French resistance organized suicide attacks
against the Nazi occupiers. Were the French suicide bombers terrorists?

Who were their targets? If the targets were military, then no.