Leftist science. They’re pathological liars.
(twitter.com)
Comments (29)
sorted by:
Name calling.
Very impressive. /s
More name calling.
I'm seeing a pattern folks.
Folks this is what the paper is pointing out:
"Interpretation Maps of mortality risks and excess deaths indicate geographical differences, such as a north–south gradient and increased vulnerability in eastern Europe, as well as local variations due to urban characteristics. The modelling framework and results are crucial for the design of national and local health and climate policies and for projecting the effects of cold and heat under future climatic and socioeconomic scenarios." https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00023-2/fulltext#seccestitle150
I doubt it occurred to anyone who prepared the study that someone like Patrick Moore or CanadianRighty - who apparently only look at the pictures, and ignore the text - would pounce on one graphic in an 11 page paper, ignore the simple numbers at the bottom - which anyone with a high school education could understand if they tried - and conclude "THey'Re lyinG TO ME!"
Wrong, Tuchodi. This is what the study is pointing out:
And, yes, the chart was misleading. It was obviously done this way on purpose.
Only if you can't tell the difference between the "Findings" section and the "Interpretation" section.
Of course it was done that way on purpose. Graphs are for plotting data. There's no data on the right for 40 - 250.
Apparently you can’t tell the difference because the report is “pointing out” the findings section.
"The modelling framework and results are crucial for the design of national and local health and climate policies and for projecting the effects of cold and heat under future climatic and socioeconomic scenarios."
Good quote. Doesn’t change the fact that the point of the report is the findings and the posted graph is misleading. There’s no purpose to your bullshit.
Folks, the findings are numbers:
"Findings 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. These corresponded to age-standardised rates of 129 (empirical 95% CI 114–142) and 13 (11–14) deaths per 100 000 person-years. Results differed across Europe and age groups, with the highest effects in eastern European cities for both cold and heat."
The graphs do not confuse their intended audience, despite what anonymous trolls with no relevant background think.
The graphs do not confuse their intended audience. How much more bullshit can you come up with?
In terms of data representation, it's true that how data is presented can greatly influence how it's perceived. Sometimes, adjusting the y-axis scale can create a misleading impression about the relative sizes of different effects. If this were the case with the original Lancet chart, your concern would be valid. It's important to interpret data with care and understand the full context in which it's presented.
However, it's also important to consider that Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal, often publishes scientific research that has been rigorously reviewed by experts in the field. It's unlikely that they would intentionally publish misleading data. Sometimes, the scale of the y-axis is changed for practical reasons such as visibility of data, and not necessarily to intentionally skew perception.
On the topic of cold vs heat related deaths, it's complex. While cold-related deaths may numerically exceed those related to heat in certain geographical areas, it's important to understand the nuanced factors behind these statistics. Cold-related deaths could be related to numerous factors such as inadequate housing or clothing, access to heat, and underlying health conditions that make certain populations more vulnerable.
In the context of climate change, a rise in heat-related deaths is a significant concern because it's a relatively new and escalating threat that's driven by human action. While it may currently cause fewer deaths than cold weather, that doesn't make it less worthy of attention.
It's also worth considering that even if a graph shows that cold weather currently causes more deaths, it doesn't necessarily mean that we should ignore the potential dangers and future impacts of increasing heat waves, which are projected to become more frequent and severe due to climate change.
In conclusion, while it's important to critically evaluate how data is presented and to ensure that it isn't misleading, it's also important to consider the full context and complexities of the data being shown.