4 ms·
The Lancet’s Scientific Chicanery on Temperature-Related Deaths
- lern_too_spel 3y agoThis is stupid, like the rest of the articles on climatechangedispatch.com. The Lancet paper makes no attempt to say that heat-related deaths are worse than cold-related deaths. The paper is about the risk for temperature related death by age group in European cities, and the blog's version of the plot does not show that at all, removing the age groups entirely.
- db48x 3y agoThe age groups are not all that important, since the number of heat-related deaths is so small. It's fine to make a graph that shows both, but scaling the axis that way is at best incompetent.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago> The age groups are not all that important The age groups are the whole point of the paper. (Simply reading the abstract would have told the blogger or his readers that the paper is not at all about whether cold or heat causes more deaths.) It made the heat death bars longer just so the age groups could be shown, and the blogger's "corrected" plot doesn't show the information that the paper is about.
- kevin_b_er 3y agoWritten by a known disinformation "think tank": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.
- PraetorianGourd 3y agoI wonder _why_ they would do something like this? It seems so very self-defeating to give ammunition to those who want to toss out all climate science. Yes, it is entirely unfair that people will use this as evidence that the entire science behind climate change is doctored. But we _know_ people will use any stumble to push that narrative, so why not be incredibly cautious, and ensure that your science is above reproach?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]