I was a lefty just a couple of short years ago. I still see the world mostly the same way (except of course militant radical Islam). I just am more willing to examine other’s views, and not reject them automatically.

I rather enjoy no longer being so pompous, arrogant, and full of it and myself. Laughing at myself. While smiling at those still wearing lead boots. Who are unable to take a single step towards the center. If only to take a single stolen peek.

He is also happy, if embarrassed, to acknowledge that what he said about Afghanistan was “total bollocks,”, resulting from an excess of credulity toward the predictions of international aid agencies.

But very similar predictions appear to have been proved right in the case of Iraq? I must say I’d really be interested in Cohen’s views on the Lancet study. Maybe I’ll post something to that effect on his weblog.

Why, isn’t it, indeed, perfectly obvious? Not ‘nothing the US does’ necessarily, but the US starting a war, bombing and invading another third world country. What was the last time something like that had any good consequences for anyone outside the United Fruit, oil companies and arm dealers and manufacturers?

The phrase ‘pseudo left’ is highly dodgy btw: it was coined by the Maoist drones at LastSuperPower.net who are all, without exception, assholes.

Sorry, but where exactly are the predicted hordes of refugees desperately fleeing Iraq?

But don’t you think Nick Cohen is gradually turning into Paul Johnson, Chris? It seems to happen to all Lefties eventually.

Not really, in Cohen’s case he has too much dislike for a lot of Conservative bullshit for this to happen. His stance on issues such as immigration, race relations, influence of big business etc put him well on the left-liberal side of things.

Dead, mainly, according to the Lancet.

The Lancet study, even if one is to accept its worst-case conclusions at face value, documents nothing of the sort. In fact it’s hard to say what that study documents apart from the prejudices of its authors, which clearly mesh comfortably with yours.

The distinction (without much difference) you’re playing here is refugees vs. internally displaced persons. There are, obviously, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of IDs in Iraq; that they haven’t left the country (for whatever reasons) is not necesarily something you should brag about.

Almost all doctors have a strong prejudice against premature mortality. Statisticians have a prejudice to the effect that if a parameter estimate is very much larger than zero, the true value of the parameter is very unlikely to be less than zero.

Those who do not share these prejudices would be well advised to stay away from medicine and statistics.

There is all the difference in the world between a prediction of the future and a statement that something has happened in the past (and is still happening). Predictions are (and please stop me if i’m boring everyone who can read without moving their lips) by definition, uncertain. They might be right, they might be wrong. That’s the way it is.

Statements about the past, on the other hand, are either true or false. There is no ambiguity.

Now: either the amount of people (within confidence intervals) stated in the Lancet study died: or they didn’t. To the best of my knowledge not one coherent counter-argument to the Lancet’s study has been produced. I.e. some people have made obvious and facile criticisms (most of which were acknowledge by the authors themselves), or else they have pointed out that more research is needed (true, but also true of all scientific studies).

But to the best of my knowledge not one serious critique of the study has been published BY A SERIOUS EPIDEMIOLOGIST OR STATISTICIAN.
Certainly lots of illiterate arts graduates have gotten pretty excited by phrases like ‘confidence intervals’ (which they have obviously never encountered before) but their opinions are worthless.

Given that their opinions are worthless, one can go onto looking at motives. Here’s a clue as to what their motives might be. What are the motives of those who attempt to minimise casualties inflicted by the Khmer Rouge? What are the motives of those who downplay the numbers of Jews exterminated by the Nazis? What are the motives of those who downplay the numbers of Stalin’s victims?