4 ms·

In the case of murder, the murder rate today is no higher than it was a century ago and much less than it was 30 years ago. So how big an interval do YOU think

by glenra 13y ago

In the case of murder, the murder rate today is no higher than it was a century ago and much less than it was 30 years ago. So how big an interval do YOU think is appropriate to look at for the murder rate? Go back too far and you get into measurement problems. Merely counting incidents (as the wikipedia page does) is nonsense for several reasons (1) a vastly better news network is going to make more incidents easy to find today than in the past, (2) incidents that happened since the internet and in recent people's memories are going to be overrepresented, (3) population growth means we expect more incidents even if the base rate were flat or declining. In the case of climate change, the trend for the last decade is flat/cooling - that's more than "a year or two". Which is not terribly consistent with the models - the models clearly have been running hotter than observations and are have been unreliable predictors. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/last:120/plot/wti/last:120/trend http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/last:120/plot/wti/last:...

lutusp 13y ago
> In the case of murder, the murder rate today is no higher than it was a century ago and much less than it was 30 years ago. To make that claim, you need to define "rate". Does "rate" mean the absolute number of murders per day or year, or the number of murders per day or year divided by the population? The absolute rate is obviously higher -- the burden must be is yours to offer evidence that it's unchanged since 1800. But the rate per population might be unchanged (not likely), but if so, that supports the idea that increased population is a factor, which circles back to my original point. Also, when you perform a moving average, you can "prove" anything by choosing the right interval. But, because the future is expected to be long, so should our averaging interval. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest. For example, climate change deniers use short averaging intervals to "prove" that the climate is actually cooling, where the same measure using a longer averaging interval shows this is false. Oh, I see you do just that. Too bad -- choosing an inappropriate averaging interval is not science, it's politics. > ... population growth means we expect more incidents even if the base rate were flat or declining. Well ... now that you're arguing my points for me, I guess we're done.
- glenra 13y ago
  > To make that claim, you need to define "rate". "rate" means per capita per year. By "a century ago" I meant around 1913; 1800 would be TWO centuries ago. The murder rate in the US has been in the general ballpark of 5-10 per 100,000 annually since 1910. Currently we're near the low point of the last century. Um, here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_late... Quote: "Today's murder rate is essentially at a low point of the past century. The murder rate in 2011 was lower than it was in 1911. And the trend is downward. Whatever we've been doing over the last 20-30 years seems to be working, more or less. The murder rate has been cut by more than half since 1980: from 10.7 to 4.7." > But the rate per population might be unchanged (not likely), but if so, that supports the idea that increased population is a factor, which circles back to my original point. You now appear to be stark raving bonkers. No, silly, if the rate is unchanged it does NOT support your point. Yes, as there are more people, there are likely to be more murders as an absolute number. There are also likely to be more hugs, more kisses, more birthday parties, and more people making silly arguments over the internet. NONE of those constitute a population-limiting crisis. Well, except maybe that last one. :-)
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > "rate" means per capita per year. That's by no means the only meaning of "rate". The meaning of a rate depends on the two values involved -- the dividend and divisor. The identity of both defines a specific use of the term "rate". "Murders divided by years" is one example of a rate. "Murders divided by (years times population)" is another. And "(mb-ma) divided by ((yb-ya) times (pb-pa))" starts us toward a moving average. Rate doesn't have only one meaning -- to accept your definition would severely constrain mathematics. > No, silly, if the rate is unchanged it does NOT support your point. Of course it does -- given a rapidly increasing population and the same rate, it means the absolute number of incidents has increased. That was my point. > There are also likely to be more hugs, more kisses, more birthday parties, and more people making silly arguments over the internet. NONE of those constitute a population-limiting crisis. But in truth, all of them do. It's a classic case of an increasing population held within a finite land mass -- eventually the system collapses. If the population is increasing without constraint, it doesn't matter what those people are doing apart from increasing their numbers -- the fact that they're increasing their numbers eventually becomes the only issue worth addressing.

by glenra 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

> In the case of murder, the murder rate today is no higher than it was a century ago and much less than it was 30 years ago. To make that claim, you need to define "rate". Does "rate" mean the absolute number of murders per day or year, or the number of murders per day or year divided by the population? The absolute rate is obviously higher -- the burden must be is yours to offer evidence that it's unchanged since 1800. But the rate per population might be unchanged (not likely), but if so, that supports the idea that increased population is a factor, which circles back to my original point. Also, when you perform a moving average, you can "prove" anything by choosing the right interval. But, because the future is expected to be long, so should our averaging interval. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest. For example, climate change deniers use short averaging intervals to "prove" that the climate is actually cooling, where the same measure using a longer averaging interval shows this is false. Oh, I see you do just that. Too bad -- choosing an inappropriate averaging interval is not science, it's politics. > ... population growth means we expect more incidents even if the base rate were flat or declining. Well ... now that you're arguing my points for me, I guess we're done.

glenra 13y ago
> To make that claim, you need to define "rate". "rate" means per capita per year. By "a century ago" I meant around 1913; 1800 would be TWO centuries ago. The murder rate in the US has been in the general ballpark of 5-10 per 100,000 annually since 1910. Currently we're near the low point of the last century. Um, here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_late... Quote: "Today's murder rate is essentially at a low point of the past century. The murder rate in 2011 was lower than it was in 1911. And the trend is downward. Whatever we've been doing over the last 20-30 years seems to be working, more or less. The murder rate has been cut by more than half since 1980: from 10.7 to 4.7." > But the rate per population might be unchanged (not likely), but if so, that supports the idea that increased population is a factor, which circles back to my original point. You now appear to be stark raving bonkers. No, silly, if the rate is unchanged it does NOT support your point. Yes, as there are more people, there are likely to be more murders as an absolute number. There are also likely to be more hugs, more kisses, more birthday parties, and more people making silly arguments over the internet. NONE of those constitute a population-limiting crisis. Well, except maybe that last one. :-)
- lutusp 13y ago
  > "rate" means per capita per year. That's by no means the only meaning of "rate". The meaning of a rate depends on the two values involved -- the dividend and divisor. The identity of both defines a specific use of the term "rate". "Murders divided by years" is one example of a rate. "Murders divided by (years times population)" is another. And "(mb-ma) divided by ((yb-ya) times (pb-pa))" starts us toward a moving average. Rate doesn't have only one meaning -- to accept your definition would severely constrain mathematics. > No, silly, if the rate is unchanged it does NOT support your point. Of course it does -- given a rapidly increasing population and the same rate, it means the absolute number of incidents has increased. That was my point. > There are also likely to be more hugs, more kisses, more birthday parties, and more people making silly arguments over the internet. NONE of those constitute a population-limiting crisis. But in truth, all of them do. It's a classic case of an increasing population held within a finite land mass -- eventually the system collapses. If the population is increasing without constraint, it doesn't matter what those people are doing apart from increasing their numbers -- the fact that they're increasing their numbers eventually becomes the only issue worth addressing.