Fair-ish and Balanced-ish
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Sarin Found in Iraq
Apparently the suspected sarin containing artillery shell which was found in Iraq is real.
Thank gods for that. Had it been full of explosives, the two soldiers who sustained minor injuries would probably be dead when the shell exploded.
This is simply another illustration of why chemical weapons don't deserve to belong in the WMD category - at least not until military grade explosives are added.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Iraq and Early Tasmanian History
While flipping through The Australian today, I came across a article on the death rates in Iraq. This immediately caused me to flash back to the Keith Windschuttle debates. The topic of death rates came up then. I had a large post on the death rates in Tasmania (which one of Windschuttles friends called a nun's picnic) vs. other violent places here. The relevent part of that post reads as following:
As mentioned in my post below, Windschuttle's work has a significant number of flaws. I've been commenting on this over at the Armadillo, and I thought it would be interesting to see what the consequences would be if Windschuttle was right about the Tasmania Aborigine population, but Willis was correct about the number of Aboriginal deaths.
About here, I should point out that this post is heavily based off the work of Mark Finnane and H. A. Willis, whose papers are linked to in the post below this one.
To replicate Finnane's work, with Willis's numbers we get the following result:
Assuming a constant population of 2000 from 1803 to 1834, we get a death rate of about 300 - 540 /100,000 (Willis allows for considerable uncertainty in the accounts).
This compares with Finnane's figure of around 190 / 100,000 for the same time period.
Now what happens when we look at the 1828 to 1834 period (where Windschuttle assumes that the population had shrunk to around 500).
With this time period we get death rates of 3700 - 4900 / 100,000 (this compares to the Finnane figure of around 2000).
Now, it's important to note that these figures are very biased towards low death rates for two reasons.
* Not all deaths would have been recorded, and
* These calculations assume a constant population - as the population was declining, the average population over the time period is significantly lower than the population at the start of the time period.
So with these conservative figures in mind, how do they compare with some other numbers:
The United States general has a murder rate in the region of 9 - 10 / 100,000.
Medieval historians are surprised when the murder rate reaches the 10 - 60 / 100,000.
Assuming that Australia had a population of around 5 million in 1914, and suffered 60,000 deaths in World War I, the death rate would be 240 / 100,000.
According to the Cambodian Genocide Project, during the Khmer Rouge regime, about 1.7 million died out of a population of 8 million. This gives a death rate of about 4300 / 100,000.
From The Oz's article, the death rate in Baghdad is about 76 / 100,000.
To help out the warbloggers, perhaps they might to use this slogan; Iraq, significantly less dangerous than a nun's picnic.
Around the World
Tim Lambert is on the warpath, and has a couple of posts on global warming skeptic Ross McKitrick here, here and here.
My pick of McKitrick's litany of errors is this; when trying to calculate temperature trends from a number of stations McKitrick replaced months when no data was reported with a reading of zero degrees. This is the sort of error that high school students shouldn't make. But McKitrick isn't a high school student. He is a Professor of Economics. Very very poor.
On the other hand, McKitrick has supplied plenty of evidence to back up a comparison by the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, which puts global warming skeptics in the same category as flat-earthers.
Elsewhere in the blogosphere, John Quiggin has posts on the Copenhagen Consensus and nuclear power as a solution for reducing global warming.