re: #12 Hal_10000

That would be true if the data were a normal distribution but it’s not. The majority of their data points are below average. The sample is highly skewed by a few years in which there were very few incidents. In fact, there is another run of nine data points right before the period they claim has the sharp rise. There is a run of eight out of nine around the turn of the century. There are other smaller runs. The sample they use is way too small and sparse for the technique they are using (or really any technique).

I don’t see any testing of the null hypothesis here.

You know, they actually provide the data, you could actually analyze it if you wanted to do valid criticism. Like I did. But P<.05 for the contention that the data post-2011 are simple noise, when compared to data since 1989. As I said, there may be more ‘clusters’ elsewhere, feel free to actually, y’know, do some fucking work like Mother Jones did.