Wow, that’s some impressively bad statistical analysis. The author cherry picks 2019 vs 2020 for deaths from natural disaster showing a decline when basically

Wow, that’s some impressively bad statistical analysis. The author cherry picks 2019 vs 2020 for deaths from natural disaster showing a decline when basically everyone stayed home in the US in 2020. He also uses natural distaster deaths rates from 200 years ago to compare to now. Somehow these statements prove Democrats are more likely to believe that natural disasters are killing more people. He then says emissions have declined 14% over the last decade, by again pausing a CoViD recession year. Emissions are statistically flat to slightly declining (<5%) from 2009-2019: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide... https://www.statista.com/statistics/517376/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/517376/us-greenhouse-gas... Emissions data is highly variable and has relative high error margin. +/- 5% or more. He normalizes data to prove his preconceived notions and then picks outlier years. This is the 2nd most egregious representation of data I’ve ever seen. Yet another trash article from substack.