A high school student complained about "incorrect" information in his high school textbook. You know, terrible statements that give "the mistaken impression that the scientific evidence of global warming is doubtful and uncertain," like "science doesn't know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect is."
The problem is that it is a fact that "scientific evidence of global warming is doubtful and uncertain." There's nothing mistaken about that. It is, further, a fact that "science doesn't know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect is."
An older edition of the textbook added, "if [the greenhouse effect] exists at all," which is incorrect. We know it exists. But we do not know if it has any significant effect on climate.
There are a few thing listed in the book that are incorrect, but the article gives this as the primary example, and it's wrong. Even the IPCC claimed that their evidence is uncertain, and that they do not know whether we have a dangerous level of global warming, or how bad the greenhouse effect is. Them's the facts.
The funniest/saddest part, when the student said, "All the statements for the most part were trying to lead the reader in one direction and not giving a fair account of everything." Except that from his own words it is quite obvious that if the statements were leading the readers in the direction he agreed with -- claiming global warming is fact, for example -- he'd not have had a problem with it.
He added, "I'm not looking to cause a huge controversy, but I want the students to be taught correct information." Agreed. So there should be no problem whatsoever with noting the unquestionable fact that science is uncertain about global warming existing, being dangerous, or being caused by man.
Some of the incorrect examples in the book have to do with religion, for example, the notion that all public prayer in public schools is outlawed. That's a false claim. Unfortunately, what was left out of the book is that doubting the religion of Global Warming in public schools is disallowed.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at April 09, 2008 07:29 AM | Email ThisUnless you would like to step forward and claim your Nobel Prize by proving me wrong ... ?
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 07:58 AMI would rephrase that as, maybe you can show me your computer mathematical model, plug in data from a few years back and show me that it correctly models a damn thing. Oh, and don't forget all of the natural factors, too, please. ( I would guess they far surpass any man-made effects.)
This is not directed at Duffman, BTW. You've got your hands full supporting the Hildabeast. Good luck. I feel for you.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 9, 2008 08:40 AMDumb statement dude!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 9, 2008 08:50 AMHow about we count the number of soldiers who have been blown up during Bush 's admin and compare that to Clinton's term.
Honestly. Such a blatant logical fallacy only makes you look stupid.
Note I do not necessarily subscribe to everything that is posted at all of the links in the above list; in fact I question some the claims made in the above. But I do think that if we get a few more years of falling world-wide average temps, the ''spend trillions now to "stop" global warming'' crowd may find themselves facing some ''inconvenient facts''.... As they should.
Perhaps you would care to enlighten us on what that logical fallacy is??
Army boy blames Clinton for the loss of the USS Cole, but has no qualms about the loss of life in Iraq.
Go ahead Pudgee, fill us in on the difference
How about I rephrase it a bit, so you can see how stupid you're being. General Wesley Clark was in favor of U.S. military action in WWII, and is against military action in Iraq. So by your same logic, I could say, "General Wesley Clark blames Bush for the loss of lives in Iraq, but he has no qualms about the loss of life in World War II."
Now do you get it?
No one here would say the loss of life of World War II -- in D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, and so on -- means that the American leaders did anything wrong. Yet your comparison assumes precisely that nonsensical claim, that you can make a direct comparison between loss of life in the U.S.S. Cole to loss of life in Iraq, that the mere fact of deaths themselves is evidence that our leader did something wrong.
It's, logically speaking, pure nonsense.
Also, you are, in fact, lying when you say Army Medic/Vet "has no qualms about the loss of life in Iraq." Lying about your opponent is always fallacious as well; it is a form of the ad hominem fallacy.
Hope that helps!
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 09:39 AMHow to conduct a basic experiment (using real everyday objects, not computer models) that conclusively proves that man made CO2 is causing temperature increases.
What?
There is none?
I thought so...
Posted by: John Bailo on April 9, 2008 10:02 AMThanks
But I don't waste my time with Wiz-head.
His statements alone shows his outright foolishness.
Unless and until critical thinking is once again taught in school there will always be a bumper crop of people who are illiterate when it comes to phenomena such as climate change and they will be suckers for the type of non-sense that is being passed off as "settled" science.
If nothing else tipped one off that the evidence for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is "manufactured" and nothing but a sham, it should have been recognized as such when the proponents became totally invested in this "consensus of the scientific community" horse manure.
Look up oxymoron, look up consensus, look up the "scientific method" - - - the scientific method is not consistent with consensus, it is an oxymoron. That should tell you something.
Posted by: JDH on April 9, 2008 10:18 AMPerhaps if I restate, we can discuss without the name calling:
Army man blames Clinton for the loss of lives on the USS Cole. Why?
Army appears to feel the loss of life in Iraq is worthwhile. How so?
If the first is true, why are the two different?
I was indeed asking those questions.
Feel free to answer them if you can.
And I reserve the right to embarrass myself at any and all times.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 9, 2008 11:46 AMFalse.
I was indeed asking those questions.
False.
Feel free to answer them if you can.
They are, of course, off-topic.
And I reserve the right to embarrass myself at any and all times.
You exercise that right nearly every time you come over here.
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 12:00 PMYawn.
Sorry, did you have a point?
Didn't think so.
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 12:23 PMThe La Niņa should thus continue to affect global temperatures into 2008.Posted by: tc on April 9, 2008 12:31 PM
Until then, its all a bunch of voodoo.
Posted by: ITK on April 9, 2008 12:36 PMArmy boy is the one who made the asinine comment about Clinton and the USS Cole. Maybe he would like to reply.
The methodology is inherently flawed.
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 01:19 PMLet's flip it to an El Nino winter and all the pro-global warming folks screaming that see the temperatures are warming. Of course the crowd here would claim the obvious fact that the current season's weather has nothing to do with whether global warming is occurring or not, but to the El Nino that is happening.
The bottom line is you can't make the argument against Global Warming due to the current season's weather. The argument can only be settled by the long term trends. Daily Weather is random and cyclical. Long term trends are another story. For instance, with the recent frequency of El Nino winters, the Glaciers here have been receding. If there were a series of strong La Nina winters, maybe they would come back. What is stopping this trend from occurring?
Next thing you know we'll have some Circuit Court Judge deciding what the "truth" is about global warming. It reminds me of that ignorant judge trying to sort out the statistics of the last gubernatorial election.
Posted by: Scott on April 9, 2008 01:38 PMYep.
Let's flip it to an El Nino winter and all the pro-global warming folks screaming that see the temperatures are warming. Of course the crowd here would claim the obvious fact that the current season's weather has nothing to do with whether global warming is occurring or not, but to the El Nino that is happening.
Exactly, and THIS is where the discussion usually starts, and it RESULTS in anti-GW folks using La Nina as their example. It is not factually justified, but turnabout's fair play ...
The bottom line is you can't make the argument against Global Warming due to the current season's weather.
Yep. However, what you CAN do is recognize the fact that even using their own (flawed) methodology, there has not been a net increase in temperatures. It doesn't mean there isn't GW, it just means that the evidence THEY were using doesn't show there is.
The argument can only be settled by the long term trends.
Yep, and those trends can only be measured using something more accurate than our current methods, OR they must be much greater differences than we are seeing.
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 01:55 PMExactly what would you be expecting (theoretically speaking) to be shown to demonstrate that there has been an increase? What magnitude of change would you be expecting?
If you look at the comment in the report about the Artic Ice Pack and look at the glacial data, one could see that there has been a shift. The question, in my mind, isn't whether there has been a shift, but understanding the causes for the shift (i.e., is it just part of nature or are we contributing to it). I would think a better argument position would be one of addressing whether the causes are natural or man-made. This is where I see the most discrepancy in the current data.
Posted by: tc on April 9, 2008 02:17 PMThe Global Climate Circulation models do not prove that greenhouse gases are causing warming. The best the models do is show some correlation, not causation, between carbon emissions and warming.
Experimental scientific research based upon empirical data put the climate model projections in doubt. It is irrational to use unproven hypotheses based upon modeling as justification fo
policies that will cost trillions of dollars attempting to do the impossible, that is control climate change.
One thing tha peeves me about the comments on this site concerning climate is the confusion between weather and climate. The cool last three months are observations about weather, not climate.
Climate is mathematical construct of weather data over a period of years.
Confusing weather for climate or the opposite prevents rational discussion of the two phenomenon.
How 'bout Army boy? Can't he stand up for himself?
One, the Climate Models basically all work by predicting that CO2, which they admit is a small part of the total greenhouse gases, will cause a runaway positive feedback in the H2O vapor which is the largest part of the greenhouse effect. Put simply, all of the water vapor gets trapped by some unexplained interaction with the small percentage of CO2 produced by man, and we all cook to death. The trouble is that there is new research that shows there happens to be a negative feedback process for releasing the heat trapped in the water vapor. You might have heard of it, it is called rain. A real washout for Global Warmers.
Second, sun spot cycle 23 is still going. It was predicted to end last year, and then in February, and then in March, and now in May, or maybe by the end of the year. This makes one of the longest sunspot minimums in recent history. It's clear from empirical observations of previous sunspot activity that if sunspots do not pick up for whatever little understood reason involving the physics of the sun, we experience more cooling.
Third, Global temperatures have indeed been falling since 2001. And there is no sign of that turning around. Of particular note is the record winters all around the globe, and the record ice buildup in Antarctica in 2007. All major indices show this to be true, but James Hansen and team are still modifying the data sets on a regular basis to try and make it look warmer. They can only do so much modification without the Suns cooperation.
Fourth, the Mann hockey stick graph, which underlies much of the basis for Global Warming hysteria has been thoroughly debunked from a statistical perspective. Underlying calculations were simply wrong, and that has been shown without doubt. But beyond that, now underlying Bristle-cone Pine studies on which the hockey stick graph was based, also appear to be quite site selective and somewhat biased. And, it is much more likely that instead of indicating a CO2 record, that the Bristle-cone Pines rings indicate a record of whatever nutrient or variable for their growth that was least abundant. In the case of the sites for these pines that form the major basis of the Mann graph, the least abundant variable for pine growth was water, and not CO2. In other words, the majority of the pine sites were located in drought prone areas.
Fifth, GISS global temperature data-sets are based on recorded measurements at about 1200 sites throughout the US. SurfaceStations.org has begun a thorough catalog of these sites to see what local biases could be influencing temperature measurements. As it turns out, about 40 to 45% of the 500 or so sites cataloged thus far, show extreme local biases that influence the trend of temperature measurement upwards. Parking lots, proximity to buildings, air conditioners, and other thermal mass objects have all been thoroughly photo documented as being far too close to the measurement devices. And correspondingly, as sites have switched over to electronic based measurement over the past 20 to 30 years, many of the same sites show big jumps in the temperature data as a step function that exactly matches with the date of the movement of the temperature measuring equipment closer to the thermal mass objects like buildings and parking lots. In other words, much of the key temperature metric for the US that Global Warming hysteria is based upon, is likely skewed warmer by the heat island effect of relocation of temperature sensors in our more modern digital era where shorter cable runs make for convenient installations.
Sixth, in the IPCC report where equations are listed that underly the climate models, a particular term in the equations is such that small CO2 will cause runaway positive feedback, and thus global warming. But, we know from historical CO2 record, that many more parts per million CO2 existed in the past, without runaway global warming. In fact, we all are familiar with the concept of Ice Age, but can you recall hearing about prolonged Heat Ages? The earth has much more built in with respect to negative feedback, and if anything is more prone to disastrous cooling, than warming. And, the IPCC, while lowering the CO2 measured over the past 10 years or so based on empirical evidence as each new rev of the report has been released, has correspondingly tweaked the feedback term for greater runaway positive effect. In other words, as the data has actually shown less CO2 than was previously forecast as cause for alarm, they have simultaneously bumped up the part of the computer model that takes that lesser amount of CO2 and generates the runaway positive feedback for panic. So if the results start to look less convincing, they simply change the model to make it more convincing. Great for computer animation to look more realistic, no so great for Climate Hysteria that will have massive economic impacts.
It goes on and on, with more blogs, meteorologists and real climate scientists weighing in every day with more an more evidence that at very worst, we do not know exactly what is happening. But not knowing or seeing serious problems with data or methodology it is no cause for hysteria or alarm, and certainly no cause for trillion dollar economic shifts, carbon cap and trade, biofuel switches that drive up food prices, etc. Real Science is far more prudent when data starts showing the opposite of what was expected. But there is a lot of money and power invested in climate hysteria.
And all of this data is coming together in the perfect storm of a cooling climate where increased food prices due to biofuels, coupled with a downturn in global temperatures which only has to have one bad year of low crop yield, and there's going to be nothing but a lot of crow being eaten by Al Gore and the other doom and gloomers.
Average everyday folks and armies of bloggers and real scientists are fed up with this hoax and all of the surround myths and hysteria, and it's all coming to a head.
Little wonder that Al Gore flatly accuses all who disagree as Holocaust deniers, and has also started a $300 million campaign to try and convince everyone of the hoax before the Sun exposes his scam.
If you are one of those drinking the climate hysteria Kool-Aide, prepare for an onslaught of facts that you won't be able to deny or escape, because they are coming whether you like it or not. The clock is ticking, and time is not on Al Gore's side.
It is a debate about religion. Logic and practical concerns are irrelevant.
Our nuns are the female teachers who don't know what albedo is, and our priests are false prophets like Al Gore.
200 years from now man will still be the "devil's tool" as far as the environmental zealots are concerned.
We CAN'T measure the earth's temperature.
We CAN'T run a parallel control experiment.
We CAN'T even decide if warming is good or bad.
We WILL adapt. And survive. That is certain.
We MUST use our limited resources where actual advantage will result. Infrastructure, and good well water for all.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on April 9, 2008 04:26 PM"How about we count the number of soldiers who have been blown up during Bush 's admin and compare that to Clinton's term."
In the seven years that Bush has been in office, 7000+ men and women in uniform have died while on duty.
In the eight years Clinton was in office, without a conflict such as Iraq to explain away the numbers, more than 14,000 men and women in uniform died while on duty.
Posted by: barrackslawyer on April 9, 2008 04:29 PMI never stated any such thing.
and also that there must be greater differences than we are seeing.
I never stated that, either.
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 05:16 PMUmmmm. In fact, I never in this thread discussed the questions you wanted me to answer, about whether Iraq was worthwhile and so on.
So you're claiming at some point I "started losing" an argument that I was never engaged in.
Seriously, dude, you're not helping anyone think I was wrong earlier when I questioned your intelligence.
My original post was not to you, and by your own words, not even on topic. Yet you jumped right in addressing me with a half-baked argument about my logic. Then when you got to the point of discomfort with my questions, you declared them "off topic" switched to name calling. Now you say none of my posts are irrelevant, yet you feel compelled to respond to every one of them.
Your deeds belie your words my friend.
Thou doest protest too much.
It's been fun though.
Irrelevant.
and by your own words, not even on topic.
Correct.
Yet you jumped right in
Apparently you do not realize the fact that this is a public forum. WHO you address your post to does not matter. It is fair game for all. And even if that were not the case, as I am the one who posted this article, I have extra responsibility to make sure that people aren't saying stupid things.
... addressing me with a half-baked argument about my logic
Incorrect. What I said was absolutely true and relevant.
Then when you got to the point of discomfort with my questions
No such thing ever happened.
... you declared them "off topic"
False. I did so only when you demanded I respond to them, not because of some insipid notion in your little brain about "discomfort."
... switched to name calling
I am not sure from your run-on sentence, but you appear to be accusing me of name-calling. No, you did that first (in your original post where you called Army Medic/Vet "army boy," and where you called me "pudgee" etc.). Sorry to expose yet another false claim of yours.
Now you say none of my posts are irrelevant ...
No. I never said any such thing. I neither said none of them are irrelevant, nor did I say all/any of them are irrelevant. I said you points are illogical, and that your subject is off-topic.
... yet you feel compelled to respond to every one of them.
Also false.
Your deeds belie your words my friend.
Also false, on both counts. You are apparently trying to make the argument that because I have engaged you to point out your logical errors, that somehow I was engaging you on the topic you were being illogical about. But that is an untterly illogical argument, as the two things are -- to intelligent people -- unrelated.
It's been fun though.
Nope. But it has been enlightening: this is the irrational and anti-intellectual state that the Democratic Party is in today. Not much more needs to be said.
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 06:57 PMSorry if I hurt your feelings Pudge.
It really has been fun for me though, whether you think so or not.
Best line: "I have extra responsibility to make sure that people aren't saying stupid things"
That one still has me laughing.
I'll quit now and leave you alone. I've got to go play basketball.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 9, 2008 07:08 PMWhat was going through their heads nearly every morning this April as they scraped the ice from windshields of the hybrids (or shoveled snow from their drives)?
Jeff B. good recap of what is available at Watts Up With That, IceCap, Climate Audit and other good skeptic blogs (loved the reference to "RealClimate" too).
Posted by: deadwood on April 9, 2008 07:08 PMEven the troll is astounded you take the bait.
Posted by: deadwood on April 9, 2008 07:11 PM...and so adjourns Unkl Witz to his parent's basement.
Thanks Unkl!
we'll need at least a day to absorb the voluminous intellectual contributions you've made to the SP site?
Runaway Anthropogenic Global Warming is a ridiculously tenuous hypothesis that has not been proven. And the burden of proof rests with the AGW crowd and not with so called skeptics.
If there is any long term warming after the heat island effect is removed, it is negligible because it is well within the range of much greater warming in the past which produced not only no disasters, but actually much better conditions for mankind.
The gig is up for the hysteria crowd, and they know it. Look for the panic of a cornered animal. The public is not buying their hoax.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 9, 2008 08:57 PMFalse.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings Pudge.
Impossible.
That one still has me laughing.
Yes, you laugh at what you don't understand.
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 09:10 PMAlso false!
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 09:12 PMWhat convinced me something was wrong was when Mann and his crew tried to erase past climatic warmings in the late 1990's with the now infamous "hockey stick". It was just contrary to all I had learned from work I had done in the sub-arctic in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
I didn't start doing my own review of the science until about 2002, and the deeper I dug the less I could find that gave any credence to what the Kyoto supporters were claiming about CO2 and man-caused warming.
Al Gore and his chums turned up the rhetoric since 2005 and started in earnest their trashing of anyone who spoke against the faith. It only reinforced my views that the science was flawed, since this was such anti-science behavior.
It has been so bad in science the last few years, particularly in academia and government, that only retired experts or those whose tenure is secure, dare speak. The rest are silent for fear of losing their jobs.
Ask the No. 2 climate expert in Washington State his views on AGW - Oh, yeah he got fired for calling fraud on the No.1 State Climatologist. Ask the Oregon State Climatologist - Whoops, he got fired too. Same in Virginia. This is how the consensus works in climate "science".
The debate may be settled, but the facts get louder each day. The sun is hibernating and oceans and atmosphere are cooling now for 10 years.
I really hope that this nonsense will pass soon so we can all go about solving real world problems - like providing clean water to 2/3 of planet's people - instead of wasting our efforts tilting against CO2 windmills.
Posted by: deadwood on April 9, 2008 09:59 PM
You left out one key aspect, who was funding all these scientists' research
In the 1920's there was a scientific consensus that pellagra was caused by a germ and thus infectious. All ultimately proven false....what's your point? Just because a scientists AGREE on something doesn't make it a fact. Hell, there are a lot of people, with "scientific evidence" that still believe someone other than Oswald killed Kennedy. So, consensus is not proof.
Posted by: Dave on April 9, 2008 10:01 PMThis really is getting pathetic. You seem to think you can just pronounce something as "false" without any additional information as to why it is false.
I'm really sorry you're not having fun here. This is all just a game and means nothing in the bigger picture of life. You might want to consider that the next time you decide to take Sharky's blog out for a spin.
I hate to tell you this, but Deadwood nailed it when he said "Even the troll is astounded you take the bait."
This troll is amazed you are allowed to blog without a little more self-control as to how you respond to those who have different points of view.
You need to put the training wheels back on, take a deep breath, and get a sense of humor. Otherwise, you won't last long in this realm.
Good luck on your next attempt.
Industrialization or, more specifically, the appalling overpopulation of our planet may kill us yet. But there is no evidence whatever for a "greenhouse effect."
Posted by: JB on April 10, 2008 12:31 AMWait, that can't be. Only 'white' REP guys get mad, per the Dem party.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 10, 2008 06:46 AMMost likely, he'll be embarrassed in 30 years when someone shows this article to him and ribs him about being a party to the "Global Warming Hysteria" around the turn of the century.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 10, 2008 06:48 AMNo, you've been there for awhile now.
You seem to think you can just pronounce something as "false" without any additional information as to why it is false.
False.
This is all just a game and means nothing in the bigger picture of life.
False.
I hate to tell you this, but Deadwood nailed it when he said "Even the troll is astounded you take the bait."
False.
This troll is amazed you are allowed to blog without a little more self-control as to how you respond to those who have different points of view.
False. I am under complete self-control, first off. Second, nothing I've said has anything to do with points of view. Amazing you're so stupid to still not understand that. I have not engaged you on ANY issues at all here, only on your misuse of your own "logic." I've also condemned, in this discussion, the logic of people who agree with me, so clearly it is not about points of view.
You need to put the training wheels back on, take a deep breath, and get a sense of humor. Otherwise, you won't last long in this realm.
What would "this realm" be, and how long is "long"? I've been doing this since before the web existed. I've been working for and posting heavily on one of the biggest and oldest "blogs" since before the word "blog" even existed. So I'd be curious to know what kind of time scale we're talking here.
Foolish mortal.
Posted by: pudge on April 10, 2008 06:50 AMYa know Pudge, if you've been doing this since before the web existed, and this is indicative of the quality of your product, you might want to consider a new line of work.
Frankly, if you really are a seasoned veteran at this stuff, I'd keep it to myself; pretend you're just a rookie. Folks will give you more slack that way. You certainly need it.
As always, thanks for playing.
Sorry ... are you actually claiming some level of authority about quality in this regard? Hahahahahahahahaha. OH, that's rich. Aidez-moi!
And it's probably incorrect to even call it a greenhouse, because it's across simplification to say that the entire earth's climate is similar to a human scale greenhouse, but the point is that the computer models are just plain wrong in what they predict because they have terms that specifically trend towards catastrophic heating based on CO2, even though greater and natural historical CO2 levels caused no such corresponding heating.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 10, 2008 08:49 AMI was afraid you were getting a little hot under the collar there with a few of your replies. I truly am flattered you would take the time to respond to each and every one of my posts.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 10, 2008 09:19 AMLOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 10, 2008 09:43 AMSounds like the may be some hard feelings afterall. You need to lighten up a little Pudge. This stuff is meant to be fun and entertaining. You are taking it way too seriously.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 10, 2008 09:49 AMWitz: nope. I have absolutely no feelings about you or what you said, of any kind.
Posted by: pudge on April 10, 2008 09:55 AMI've figured out that Army Vet/Medic isn't a real person at all. It's a computer program designed to generate random phrases and post them to at least give the appearance that more folks are reading and posting to this website. It's a very clever ploy.
Again, I do appreciate your taking the time to respond to every single one of my posts. I know you are a busy man.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey now, I have good friends and wish to keep them. 0-:
Your right Wiz I'm no-one at all.
Just for the fun of it.Goggle 57th medevac/Kelly's crazies.
But I'm just a no-body...but a person like everyone else.
Why don't you tell us how many brave US Soldiers died during the Nixon Administration. I think it would put Clinton's numbers to shame.
I can't find anything about "Kelly's Crazies" except here on SP. How about you give us some more info so Witz has reason to believe you (though I don't know why you would make it up).
Oh, did you think I was conceding that more Americans died under Nixon in Vietnam? Because I wasn't. American deaths in Vietnam under each President (approximate, since I only have annual data, but very close):
LBJ (1964-1968): 22,044
Nixon (1969-1974): 15,745
In a war that LBJ essentially started, that Nixon inherited, that Nixon was in longer, Nixon not only had far fewer deaths, but also actually worked to get us out of Vietnam, and had a decreasing number of deaths every year of his presidency (except for a slight uptick in '74 from 34 to 49), as opposed to the INCREASE every year of LBJ's.
So. You were saying?
Posted by: pudge on April 11, 2008 10:56 AM