5 ms·

I find it extremely callous to label a net reduction of people dying of extreme weather as only “questionably positive”.

by sltkr 3y ago

bryanlarsen 3y ago
Questionable statistic. Indirect deaths due to temperature are a lot higher than direct deaths, but much harder to measure.
- pdonis 3y ago
  The referenced paper is taking indirect effects into account. It is not just counting deaths that have "cold-related" or "heat-related" listed in the cause of death. It is looking at overall excess mortality due to extreme temperatures, i.e., the increase in deaths over what would be expected at non-extreme temperatures.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    How about deaths due to crop failure? How about deaths caused by mass migrations? How about deaths due to the increased spread of disease? et cetera.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      To the extent those vary by temperature, which is what is relevant for this discussion, the paper's methodology takes them into account. That's the whole point of doing an overall excess mortality analysis: it means you don't have to know the specific cause of each individual death or how temperature affected it. You can just compare expected deaths at "normal" temperature to actual deaths at the actual temperature (I am oversimplifying here, the actual methodology is more complex than that, but that's the basic idea). This methodology was not made up for this specific case. Overall excess mortality analysis is used in all kinds of contexts. For example, it is used to estimate the overall impact of COVID, for much the same reasons--because it takes into account indirect effects of COVID that would otherwise be very hard to measure. The methodology is not perfect (no methodology is), but it is the best we have for this kind of analysis.
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        The IPCC estimates 250,000 excess deaths due to climate change by 2050.
        pdonis 3y ago
        See my response in the other subthread where you made a similar claim.
- sltkr 3y ago
  ... he said with 0 evidence to back it up.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    The IPCC (aka broad scientific consensus) claims there will be net excess deaths due to climate change. The OP has shown (in a deleted comment) that the IPCC has includes his argument in their calculation. IOW, there are enough deaths elsewhere to offset any benefit from reduced cold deaths.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > The IPCC (aka broad scientific consensus) No, that's not what the IPCC reports represent. They represent a politically directed conclusion. We know this because the summary for policymakers is written first, which dictates what the politically directed conclusions are. Then the overall working group reports are written; then the detailed reports that are supposed to feed into the overall working group reports are written. Which is exactly backwards from how it would be done if it were representing the actual science. Also, science does not work by "consensus". It works by building models that make accurate predictions. The models we have for climate science don't make accurate predictions. And the models that are used to predict the impacts of climate change, which are not even climate science models but economic and sociological models, are even worse. In short, the actual science does not justify the alarmist claims that are being made. But even if we leave all that aside, alarmist claims don't even correctly represent what the IPCC says. For example: > The OP has shown (in a deleted comment) that the IPCC has includes his argument in their calculation. No, that's not what the comment I deleted before shows. Since you are presuming to reference it because you apparently think it somehow supports your argument, I'll repost the direct quote from the IPCC AR6 here (Working Group 2, Chapter 16.2.3.5): "Heat-attributable mortality fractions have declined over time in most countries owing to general improvements in health care systems, increasing prevalence of residential air conditioning, and behavioral changes. These factors, which determine the susceptibility of the population to heat, have predominated over the influence of temperature change." In other words, humans adapt to changes in climate, in a way that reduces the impact of those changes on (among many other things) mortality. Which is nothing like the claim you are making.

I find it extremely callous to label a net reduction of people dying of extreme weather as only “questionably positive”.

by sltkr 3y ago

I find it extremely callous to label a net reduction of people dying of extreme weather as only “questionably positive”.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Questionable statistic. Indirect deaths due to temperature are a lot higher than direct deaths, but much harder to measure.

pdonis 3y ago
The referenced paper is taking indirect effects into account. It is not just counting deaths that have "cold-related" or "heat-related" listed in the cause of death. It is looking at overall excess mortality due to extreme temperatures, i.e., the increase in deaths over what would be expected at non-extreme temperatures.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  How about deaths due to crop failure? How about deaths caused by mass migrations? How about deaths due to the increased spread of disease? et cetera.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    To the extent those vary by temperature, which is what is relevant for this discussion, the paper's methodology takes them into account. That's the whole point of doing an overall excess mortality analysis: it means you don't have to know the specific cause of each individual death or how temperature affected it. You can just compare expected deaths at "normal" temperature to actual deaths at the actual temperature (I am oversimplifying here, the actual methodology is more complex than that, but that's the basic idea). This methodology was not made up for this specific case. Overall excess mortality analysis is used in all kinds of contexts. For example, it is used to estimate the overall impact of COVID, for much the same reasons--because it takes into account indirect effects of COVID that would otherwise be very hard to measure. The methodology is not perfect (no methodology is), but it is the best we have for this kind of analysis.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      The IPCC estimates 250,000 excess deaths due to climate change by 2050.
      - pdonis 3y ago
        See my response in the other subthread where you made a similar claim.
sltkr 3y ago
... he said with 0 evidence to back it up.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  The IPCC (aka broad scientific consensus) claims there will be net excess deaths due to climate change. The OP has shown (in a deleted comment) that the IPCC has includes his argument in their calculation. IOW, there are enough deaths elsewhere to offset any benefit from reduced cold deaths.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > The IPCC (aka broad scientific consensus) No, that's not what the IPCC reports represent. They represent a politically directed conclusion. We know this because the summary for policymakers is written first, which dictates what the politically directed conclusions are. Then the overall working group reports are written; then the detailed reports that are supposed to feed into the overall working group reports are written. Which is exactly backwards from how it would be done if it were representing the actual science. Also, science does not work by "consensus". It works by building models that make accurate predictions. The models we have for climate science don't make accurate predictions. And the models that are used to predict the impacts of climate change, which are not even climate science models but economic and sociological models, are even worse. In short, the actual science does not justify the alarmist claims that are being made. But even if we leave all that aside, alarmist claims don't even correctly represent what the IPCC says. For example: > The OP has shown (in a deleted comment) that the IPCC has includes his argument in their calculation. No, that's not what the comment I deleted before shows. Since you are presuming to reference it because you apparently think it somehow supports your argument, I'll repost the direct quote from the IPCC AR6 here (Working Group 2, Chapter 16.2.3.5): "Heat-attributable mortality fractions have declined over time in most countries owing to general improvements in health care systems, increasing prevalence of residential air conditioning, and behavioral changes. These factors, which determine the susceptibility of the population to heat, have predominated over the influence of temperature change." In other words, humans adapt to changes in climate, in a way that reduces the impact of those changes on (among many other things) mortality. Which is nothing like the claim you are making.