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:

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.

And, yes, the chart was misleading. It was obviously done this way on purpose.