The Lancet pulls a fast one 10

[SwinnyGG]

We show pile lengths, span lengths, curb heights, etc. all to scale.

Until views don't show enough detail for critical items to be clear.. in which case you provide detail views in which you change the scale. Yawn.

None of us here know the intent of the report's authors.

Yes we do. It's clearly stated in the report. If any of the commenters crying foul over this one chart had read the full text, they'd know exactly what the goals of the study were- and justifying climate alarmism, or justifying carbon reduction, or justifying the use of alternative energy sources, etc are not one of their stated goals.

 

[BridgeSmith]

Yes we do. It's clearly stated in the report.

Please! Every researcher (and jounalist, for that matter) claims to be unbiased, have no agenda, and be completely evenhanded. We all know that's never true for any of us.

 

[rb1957]

"They couldn't use a logarithmic scale though, the blue bar is divided into shades for various age groups."
of course they can plot on log axes ... sure the numbers will show differently. If you're "smart" put the older age group first so it'll show up more.

"it still very clearly shows about double the area committed to excess 'cold deaths' as compared to 'heat deaths'." ... well isn't that a misrepresentation if the ratio is 10:1 ? I think the "sf" measurement overlooks the scale change, so that 10:1 becomes 2:1.

But why plot with different scales, if not the accentuate "exaggerate" the number of heat related deaths.. Sure, you can say it's labelled and anyone can read, but the first impression counts. A very significant risk is that this chart will be taken as the executive summary, and so viewed in isolation.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[SwinnyGG]

If you want to comment, go and actually read the report.

This report has a summary, the chart isn't in it.

There are other charts in the report. They show cold and heat data on the same scale in every case except this one, where the granularity of the heat data would be lost.

If you actually read the report the intent and lack of deceptive effort are very, very clear.

Guess it's easier to just complain about the stuff that matches the narrative you want to be real.

 

[BridgeSmith]

None of the politicians that will be making the decisions for us peasants will actually read the report. They'll just look at the pretty picture, and blithely move ahead with writing laws requiring ridiculous cuts to CO2 emissions, which is why the authors of the report purposefully made the graph deceiving. (Hey, if others can make assumptions about the intent of the authors, why can't I?)

 

[dik]

The conclusion is fitting, and pretty much sums it up.

"In conclusion, this study provides a detailed and comprehensive picture of cold and heat-related excess mortality in 854 cities across Europe, accounting for demographic and vulnerability differences. These results provide valuable information for policy makers to design national, regional, and local climate and public health policies, and represent a first important step towards accurate assessments of temperature-related health impacts under future climate scenarios and shared socioeconomic pathways for Europe."

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[rb1957]

well that's a conclusion of sorts. Omitting a key results of the data ... the data shows that cold temperatures cause as much as 10x the excess deaths as hot. The reasons underlying this result are manifold.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[dik]

Their conclusion is in keeping with their data. The Lancet has credentials that preclude them from 'cherry picking' the data.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

The Lancet has credentials that preclude them from 'cherry picking' the data.

Yeah, right. They used to have impeccable credentials, but those credentials have been questioned alot in the last few years.

 

[rb1957]

I'll give it to you dik, you sure don't give up the ship (or cause) !

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[SwinnyGG]

well that's a conclusion of sorts. Omitting a key results of the data ... the data shows that cold temperatures cause as much as 10x the excess deaths as hot. The reasons underlying this result are manifold.

Yet again, if you actually read the report, you'd know it states very clearly the complete results of the data evaluated. Including all the stuff you're claiming they're trying to hide, plain as day.

Since everyone crying about one chart is clearly too lazy to actually read the report, or straight up just doesn't care about the truth, let me quote for you directly from the 'Findings', 'Results', and 'Discussion' sections:

Across the 854 urban areas in Europe, we estimated an annual excess of 203 620 (empirical 95% CI 180 882–224 613) deaths attributed to cold and 20 173 (17 261–22 934) attributed to heat.

Across the 30 countries, we estimated an annual average excess of 203 620 (empirical 95% CI 180 882 to 224 613) deaths due to cold and 20 173 (17 261 to 22 934) due to heat, which amount to attributable fractions of 7·01% (6·23 to 7·73) and 0·69% (0·59 to 0·79), respectively.

For both cold and heat, the effect was noticeably larger for the oldest age group, with 82 (72 to 91) and seven (six to eight) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years.

In contrast, there was around one death per 100 000 person-years in the youngest age group for cold, and less than one per 100 000 person-years for heat.

Cold-related standardised excess rates are important in the eastern-most countries as well as the UK and Ireland, with a maximum of 353 (empirical 95% CI 272–429) deaths per 100 000 person-years in Vidin (Bulgaria). Regarding heat-related effects, there was a clear northwest–southeast gradient, with relatively small standardised excess rates in Ireland and the UK, but large standardised excess rates in the southeastern countries. The highest heat-related standardised excess death rate was 58 (37–76) per 100 000 person-years in Osijek (Croatia).

Results indicated large vulnerability differences between ages and low vulnerability to cold for younger ages, indicated by lower MMPs and a flatter exposure–response function at lower percentiles. The vulnerability to heat also increased with age, although the difference was less steep than it was for cold, suggesting that the effect of heat affected all ages more homogeneously. Overall, the population aged older than 85 years contributed around 60% of the total mortality burden.

So the thing you're up in arms about the report not saying, it says very clearly including exact data with no interpretation at least 6 times in the text, not including 3 tables of aggregate data and three other charts beyond the one being cried over in this idiotic thread, which show very clearly what's reflected in the raw data.

You'd know that if you cared at all about getting to the bottom of what the report actually says and, you know, read it.

Yeah, right. They used to have impeccable credentials, but those credentials have been questioned alot in the last few years.

By who, exactly?

Nothing in anything you've posted so far makes it sound like you have your finger on the pulse of climate-related papers being published in scientific journals. So, if Lancet is questionable, let's see your data.

 

[dik]

This is just a WAG, but I think the distortion in the data is to show how the different countries compare more easily. The method without explanation may cause some confusion.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

The Lancet report shows just one thing: As far as decreasing human deaths is concerned, hotter temperatures are better.

 

[dik]

I suspect we're not there yet... you have to give climate change a chance...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[rb1957]

personally I think our policies will kill more people than the actual climate. When energy is expensive people die, more in winter than in summer.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[BridgeSmith]

Since everyone crying about one chart is clearly too lazy to actually read the report,

Face it, most people are too lazy to read the report. As I said, this includes the politicians who will use it to justify policy decisions. The graph will be shown out of context, and probably with the scale cut off. It doesn't matter what the authors' intent was; it's crappy and misleading graph.

Nothing in anything you've posted so far makes it sound like you have your finger on the pulse of climate-related papers being published in scientific journals. So, if Lancet is questionable, let's see your data.

First, The Lancet is a medical journal, not a climate journal. Anyway, there have been several high profile articles they've had to retract (like that HCQ study where the 'researcher' just made the crap up, and nobody bothered to check their data, until after they rushed to publish it), and several more they should have (like the articles dumping on the Wuhan lab leak theory, which the evidence supported then, and the evidence has only gotten stronger since).

 

[dik]

I think you're part right... the policy, at the time, seems to be not to address the upcoming problem.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

It doesn't matter what type of journal it is; it has creds. It is perfectly in the realm of discussing health affects.

I still haven' lost my childhood curiosity; I took the time to read the report.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SwinnyGG]

First, The Lancet is a medical journal, not a climate journal.

And the article is about death rates due to a specific factor. Seems pretty medical to me.

I get it, any straw man you can find.

Face it, most people are too lazy to read the report. As I said, this includes the politicians who will use it to justify policy decisions. The graph will be shown out of context, and probably with the scale cut off. It doesn't matter what the authors' intent was; it's crappy and misleading graph.

Oh I get it. Dumb politicians that you don't like will misinterpret the data, so it's ok for you to be lazy and not gain an understanding of what the report actually says.

Real solid point of view there.

 

[hokie66]

Swinny,
Your snarky attitude is destroying your credibility. BridgeSmith is just keeping this discussion real in the face of dik's tedious harping.