InstaLetters for February 20 | OPINION | Asheville CITIZEN

Regarding the 'hope' that people will respond positively to the notion of McCain offering what would be tantamount to a third Bush term, it's nice to have hope. But the prospect of "100 more years of war" in Iraq, "lots more wars" (if he's elected) and an acknowledgment that he "knows nothing about economics" is unlikely to sway many. The country is tired of incessant fear-mongering. Yes, there are serious problems facing the country, but more of the same won't cut it anymore.

The Lancet Study on Iraqi deaths was funded by George Soros and repeatedly shown to be bogus.

I am not familiar with the other you name.

Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Immanuel Kant, and many other thinkers with better minds than any who have served in recent administrations would be nonplused by this concern about the number of Iraqis killed in the war. I suspect that for them, any number above zero would be too horrendous to justify.

Frank Rizzo wrote:

The Lancet Study on Iraqi deaths was funded by George Soros and repeatedly shown to be bogus.
I am not familiar with the other you name.

Actually, it is irrelevant who funded it; what is relevant is whether the information is valid. And while it has been "repeatedly" claimed to be bogus, this has not been demonstrated factually.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/6099...

Dionysis wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, it is irrelevant who funded it; what is relevant is whether the information is valid. And while it has been "repeatedly" claimed to be bogus, this has not been demonstrated factually.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/6099...

Don't get around much do ya ??

hanger4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't get around much do ya ??

Yes, actually I do "get around."

You don't post rational comments much, do you? If you want to challenge someone's view, you'll at least have to try and offer something beyond goofball, meaningless comments. You know, like FACTS.

Dionysis,

"Actually, it is irrelevant who funded it; what is relevant is whether the information is valid."

I shall remember that the next time you claim a study showing global warming to be a scam is invalid because it was funded by "Big Oil".

"I shall remember that the next time you claim a study showing global warming to be a scam is invalid because it was funded by "Big Oil".

On the surface, this seems fair enough. One thing that you should keep in mind, though, is that I have, and will continue to endeavor to provide information/facts to counter the pronouncements of these bought-and-sold 'scientists' shilling for the oil companies. I admit skepticism of anything coming from the oil companies, but will provide links or other references to legitimate counter-views. Simply besmirching the messenger without backup is foolish.

Oh, and if you can provide any factual information to support your claim that the Lancet Study is "bogus," please pass it on.

Dionysis,

While we are on it, I wonder if the $1 Million the warmers favorite scientist, James Hansen got from George Soros had anything to do with his sudden and abrupt conversion to a Warmist?

And where did the $1 Million from Soros come from? His fund for the "Politicization of Science".

You can't even make this stuff up.

And here is an article from the National Journal on the Lancet piece. Its a pretty straight forward, cut and dry analysis of the team that did the Lancet piece, their methods, biases, and their refusal to hand over their data for review.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/data...

Frank Rizzo wrote:

Dionysis,
While we are on it, I wonder if the $1 Million the warmers favorite scientist, James Hansen got from George Soros had anything to do with his sudden and abrupt conversion to a Warmist?
And where did the $1 Million from Soros come from? His fund for the "Politicization of Science".
You can't even make this stuff up.
And here is an article from the National Journal on the Lancet piece. Its a pretty straight forward, cut and dry analysis of the team that did the Lancet piece, their methods, biases, and their refusal to hand over their data for review.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/data...

I don't have time to read this and reply now, but I will tonight at home. If, after reading the material, I come to the conclusion that the study has been effectively refuted, then I'll acknowledge it and stand corrected.
Look for a follow-up tomorrow (or much later tonight).