posted
Everything I need to know I learned from a dark headed minx named Chaquita...but that is not important now.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that we are living in the end of days. If you read parts of the bible- they specifically name that an increase of earthquakes would come in the latter days. I think our generation will be the one to see the world end- but that's my own personal belief- it's not very "scientifically" rational- not at all indeed, but it is what I think.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
It depends on who you ask. Ask a religious person and they might say that people are losing their relgion. Ask a liberal socialist and they'll talk about conservative capitalists. Ask the poor and they'll say the rich.
The point isn't that the world is actually come to an end but that people perceive it that way when they think that things aren't going their way (I'm not saying that their way is necessarily wrong. I'm sure we can all agree that there are a few ways that we should definately be going in).
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think the right direction would be where people felt more included and at peace than more distant and hectic.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I see a use of statistics in a fashion that is so clearly susceptible to distortion, I like to put it through a few filters of my own. I believe this critical eye is a useful skill to have in our complex world.
quote:Originally posted by Father Time: The increase in catastrophic disasters is real. It is documented and analyzed. The data supporting a trend towards super disasters has been available for over a decade.
Citation source(s) please? What is a catastrophic disaster? What is a super disaster? If the trend was visible more than a decade ago, how do disasters since 1995 figure in?
quote:-The number of natural disasters has more than tripled since those experienced in the 1970’s.
Per year? How is natural disaster defined?
Were disasters defined the same way in the 70's, as they are today? Counted the same way? Were counts made then compared with counts made now? Or did someone now go back and recount based on reports and records from the 70's?
quote:-More than 3 3/4 million people were killed by all disasters in past 25 years.
This does not support any idea of a 'trend.' Other than that, the usual questions apply: who says? what disasters?
quote:-Since the 1950’s, costs associated with natural disasters have rocketed 14-fold. The year 2004 is the most catastrophic year in insurance history. The total world losses (insured and uninsured) rose to an unprecedented total of more than U.S. $150 billion.
Inflation adjusted? I didn't think so.
The mention of insurance makes me ask: where are these numbers from? Insurers? Do they have any vested interest, perhaps, in inflating their losses? The most tightly regulated industry in this country.... hmmm.
Gut check: actually, the $150 billion worldwide total for 2004 sounds low to me.
quote:-Toward the end of the 1990’s, the world counted some 25,000,000 “environmental refugees.” For the first time in recorded history, more people had fled natural hazards than conflict.
I wonder how the compilers distinguish among environmental and war and political refugees in places where those problems overlap. Perhaps these numbers came from environmentalists, seeking to dramatize their concerns. A refugee in Tanzania from Uganda -- were they fleeing strife? Drought? Earthquake? AIDS?
Does the number include people who fled hazards in previous years, but are still counted as refugees? If so, this number could just keep going up.
quote:-Another humanitarian disaster could be found in sub-Saharan Africa last year, where 2.2 million people died from the HIV/AIDS epidemic, while 24 million currently live with the infection.
'Humanitarian disaster' seems like apples and oranges to natural disasters. But it is included in 'evidence' about 'catastrophic disasters.'
I now see the point of this seems to be less to 'help people' with 'coordinated information,' but rather to impress people with a general notion that a lot of things are very bad, without having to be too careful about what things, how bad, and if or how they are related.
In particular, let's say it could be shown that there were a statistically significant increase in tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcano eruptions (to pick a category). This would likely point to some kind of tectonic or at any rate geophysical cause. It seems unlikely to me that any effort to study or address that question would have any bearing on an effort to study or address the question of AIDS. This 'information' is far from coordinated.
quote:-In 2004, Florida was hit by four hurricanes in the space of only a few weeks, making it one of the most costly hurricane seasons ever for insurers. At the same time, Japan was hit by a record number of ten tropical cyclones.
So? Is this unusual? Who says? By what measure?
Here's some interesting data (link) though it does not include the unfinished 2005 season:
Year with most (Atlantic Basin) tropical storms: 1995
Year with most hurricanes: 1969
Year with most major hurricanes: 1950
Same categories above for USA landfalling storms: 1916; 1916,'85; 1909, '33, '54
Most recent year with least major hurricanes (0): 1994
Most recent year with least major USA landfalling hurricanes (0): 2003
And the decades represented in the lists of the top 28-30 hurricanes in 3 categories (link):
This data does not seem to support an increase in catastrophic disasters. If such a trend exists, Atlantic Basin hurricanes are not part of the story.
quote:-Killer earthquakes (with scale ratings of 6.0 or above) have jumped from a cumulative total of 9 in the 1950’s, to 51 in the 1970's, to 285 in the 1990's, and already 190+ in the 2000’s.
What is a 'scale rating'? Why are the 50's cited, but not the 60's? What is the source of this? What does 'cumulative' mean? Why is the phrase 'killer quake' used, thus confusing the reader as to whether we are talking about deaths, or seismic intensity?
In fact, the numbers cited here are complete rubbish. "As more and more seismographs are installed in the world, more earthquakes can be and have been located. However, the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) have stayed relatively constant." (Link and data.)
quote:-The 1980's and 1990's were the most violent years on record for the actual number of and resulting damage from armed conflicts (including acts of terrorism, insurrection, and war).
See note above regarding AIDS. In fact we seem to have jumbled random 'facts' and misinformation from various very different categories: seismic, meteorological, health, and political. Some do interrelate (e.g., drought can contribute to disease and war) but no effort is made to make distinctions here.
Here are some interesting additional tips for scrutinizing statistics, particularly war statistics (link):
Even though the exact number may be unknown and possibly unknowable, you can still be absolutely, inarguably wrong if you misquote or misinterpret your source. If, for example, you claim that 20,000 Catholics were executed by a dictator, when in fact, the source you cite specifically says "20,000 political prisoners, many of them Catholic, were executed", then you are wrong, simple as that. (Well, unless you explain yourself...)
Apples and Oranges: Do you know exactly what is being counted in an estimate?
When someone says that 50,000 people were killed in a war, do they mean ...
50,000 soldiers were killed in combat?
50,000 soldiers died of all causes, including accidents and disease?
50,000 people were killed as a direct result of violence, including both soldiers and civilians?
50,000 people, soldiers and civilians, died of all causes, including famine and hardship?
When someone says that War A killed more people than War B, is it possible that the estimate for War A includes more categories of dead (Type 4D) than the estimate for War B (Type 4A)? And maybe, if we compared them using the same categories, the ranking would be reversed?
quote:Part of the increase can be traced to the improvements in technology and our ability to "see" disasters in remote areas of the world.
An 'increase' that has not been demonstrated.
And even if it were supported by the statistics given, it might be traced to more than technology and sensing. It is stongly impacted by population trends. Are the dollar figures inflation adjusted? And consider, too, that weather forecasting technology actually reduces the impact of some disasters (note the decline in hurricane deaths since 1900, above).
If there is such a thing as an end of days, and if it might be heralded by an increase in disasters,' then these 'statistics' do not suggest it is occurring.
It may be occurring, but nothing here supports that assertion.
Edit: typo
[ October 16, 2005, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
