Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Support Canadian snark!
Syndicate
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(2150)
-
▼
February
(199)
- The only sentence you need to read.
- All life is equal ...
- Why do the troops hate the troops?
- Come on, baby! Holden needs another pony!
- The universe works in mysterious ways.
- Oh, no. Not again.
- It works both ways, Bill.
- To absurdity ... and beyond!
- Likes long walks, sunsets, cuddling ...
- Stories of the disappeared.
- So you think you know the Bible, do you?
- Looking on the bright side of sectarian violence.
- It's Miller time in America.
- Joe Klein. Hacktacular.
- The strength of their convictions. Not.
- Another one bites the blogroll.
- When life imitates art, part 4,826.
- GOP corruption! Get your program here!
- Watching America -- it's a filthy job but SOMEONE ...
- Don't worry! Homeland Security is on the job!
- Open thread.
- And the list of the clueless just gets longer.
- It's OK if you're a wanker, I guess.
- It's called an "analogy." Deal with it.
- "You're going the wrong way!"
- Dear Jinx: Here's your chance to shine.
- The Bush clan, and the dumbing down of America.
- FOX News and CNN officially on the side of the ter...
- "Munich in America." Your homework reading assign...
- Onward, Christian martyrs.
- Dear Andrew: Try to keep up.
- Well, who didn't see THIS coming?
- Paul speaks. You listen.
- Apparently, the buck always stops somewhere else.
- Beware the Unitarian Jihad!
- Civil war? WHAT civil war?
- "Biblical contradictions? Surely, you jest."
- Man, I wish my job was this easy.
- Let me explain "out of context" one more time.
- "Jon Stewart? Never heard of him. Why?"
- "Intelligent design" comes to Canada.
- Plus ca change ... yadda yadda yadda.
- Gangway! Compassionate conservatism coming through!
- Dear readers: Please ignore "Jeff."
- Now THERE'S irony.
- When lunatic Republicans turn on one another.
- Politics Watch: Just off the turnip truck, I see.
- Just when you thought things couldn't get any weir...
- Get your (civil) war on.
- Dear "Jeff": Buh bye.
- When it comes to outsourcing port security, it's a...
- "Um .. Dubai? Never heard of it? Why?"
- Well, THAT didn't take long, did it?
- And you thought Cheney shooting a guy in the face ...
- The jaw-dropping line of the day.
- "Startling" breakthroughs: They're the new terror...
- It's a "truthiness" thing, you know.
- American religious dumbfuckery comes to town.
- When life (sadly) imitates art.
- Sometimes, it's hard not to think "cause and effect."
- Comments, setting a lower level for stupidity, and...
- JetsGo: Still flying. Sort of.
- Sorry ... what's the French word for "whore?"
- The latest word on FEMA funding and evacuees.
- Open thread, Canadian wingnut style.
- More Christian, anti-science stupidity.
- Making sure everyone sees the evidence.
- Islam: Pretty much setting the standard for "idol...
- "Intelligent Design": Looking for more local targ...
- Biblically correct stupidity.
- Learn from your mistakes? Not Harvard.
- The times, they are a changin'.
- And this one's for the ladies.
- It all depends on your definition of "sex," doesn'...
- No big deal -- it only involved sacks of cash.
- The inevitable consequences of stupidity.
- Guns don't shoot people. Apparently, NO ONE shoot...
- Yeah, THAT'LL make SportsCenter.
- Are you feeling safer yet?
- Ignorant fucktard of the day.
- Dick Cheney: "Would YOU buy a used car from me?"
- "I only hit you because I love you."
- By the process of elimination ...
- We're behind you all the way, Duncan. Seriously.
- "Paging Dick Cheney. And please bring your shotgun."
- Charles Krauthammer: Hacktacular!
- Ezra Levant, enough rope and, why, yes, I DID tell...
- Hypocritical, stupid or both? We report. You dec...
- It's TBogg's world -- we just hang out in it.
- "I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. No,...
- Compassionate conservatism, Jesusland style.
- Scott McClellan press gaggles: They are what they...
- The Bush White House: Walking and chewing gum at ...
- Just another reason to hate Wal-Mart.
- Islam, blasphemy and Ezra Levant, OH MY!
- Washington Post reporters: As stupid as ever.
- CNN: Hacktacular!
- It's all a matter of perspective.
- Jesus Christ, CNN, what the f**k were you THINKING!?
- "Terrorism:" It's the new "Hitler."
-
▼
February
(199)
9 comments:
Wow. that guy cites a whopping three examples of lefty-biased scientific studies. If thats a 'serious problem' for the powerline guys, they've got some pretty thin skin.
And yet Chris Mooney has written a whole book on how the GOP has messed around with science to suit their party line. I think the outrage belongs firmly to us in this regard.
I think you're missing the point, Stella. You see, Chris Mooney, for all his "facts" and "research", is critical of the reigning authority in the USA. That means he's a leftie. That means he is not to be trusted, and we can safely ignore his book.
On the other hand, the Powerline guys are of unimpeachible trustworthiness, and they've given us three examples. Therefore, they are correct.
Simple, see?
Careful, Stella - you shouldn't concede that these were "lefty-biased" studies.
I'm unfamiliar with the context, but the stem cell example is almost certainly simple fraud on the part of the researchers. To believe otherwise you have to buy into the thesis that promoting embryonic stem cell research is somehow a left-wing political goal. Or at least that Science should subject its manuscripts to Fumento's "ethical superiority" test.
The global warming example (another mysteriously "lefty" issue) presents a quandry. Why did they only use 35 years of data? How could anyone find out? Fumento's hoping you don't actually read the paper
(href="http://tinyurl.com/zc873). It's two pages long, and you have to read almost to the end to hit this:
"We deliberately limited this study to the satellite era because of the known biases before this period"
And also this:
"attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record"
As for the Lancet study, it never claimed to enumerate civilians killed by the war, but rather the increase in overall mortality rates since the war began. However, I love how bin Laden is somehow an expert in the Iraq casualty count...
I guess there was left-wing bias in these studies in that they were carried out by scientists and not political hacks...
The Lancet study was absolutely not "lefty-based", and it's a shame that such a rigorously executed and peer-reviewed scientific study has been essentially rejected out of hand by the uninformed Western media, just because the resultant death toll "seems high".
Adam, I agree with your sentiments but the results of the Lancet study do suggest that the increase in mortality is mostly attributable to the invasion. A quote from the Lancet authors: "Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths."
This of course doesn't reduce the validity of the report at all, which is why I think that progressive thinkers should stop making excuses for the report and not be afraid to quote from it. I notice even progressive bloggers everywhere mention only "thousands" or occasionally "tens of thousands" of Iraqi deaths because they fear that if they mention "hundreds of thousands" of excess deaths than they won't be seen as credible.
The Lancet was, at the surrounding time, one of something like 6 unique studies on body count. Its results showed something like the third or second highest totals. Iraqi Body Count was by far the lowest (which isn't surprising since by its own admission is a rock-bottom estimate, the misleading "minimum" and "maximum" counts notwithstanding).
I say it's time that progressive thinkers stop making excuses for the Lancet just because the numbers "seem high", and start treating it for what it is - a valid, scientific study using time-honoured methods. People have tried to take it down since it came out, but there have been no successful attempts (lots of critiques, all of which have been addressed by the authors and fellow scientists). And yet the right wing noise machine has still managed to convince everyone that the Lancet is discredited. Unbelievable.
Some recommended reading, just a taste (Parts I & II):
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060125_paved_with_good.php
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060126_paved_with_good_part2.php
Sorry, the links didn't work. Let me try again:
href="http://tinyurl.com/rwqwr
href="http://tinyurl.com/rlsu6
adam- I used 'lefty-biased' in the same way they did, and I fully agree with you. I, in no way, meant to agree that these studies somehow have political ideology driving their outcomes.... my point was to simply note that powerline gave three whole examples, whereas there is far more evidence on the other 'side',if you will, of this issue.
Science - politicized? Never say never, and quite frankly, in my 56 years on this earth, I have never seen such an attack on science as I have in the past 6 years. Yes, there is faux science, used by politicians to further their own ends, but this has become an all out assault on the foundations of scientific study. If it doesn't fit the current political agenda, then can it, and if you can't can it, then smear it. A typical rovian agenda to support a corrupt agenda and misdirect us poor uneducated folks.
Choice between a doctoral scientific researcher who is non partisan and a politician who needs to get elected....hmmm, which one should I believe?
Well said goodgrief ... I couln't agree with you more! They will either ignore or twist scientific findings in an attempt to satiate their appetite for money and power ... and they will never be satisfied.
Post a Comment