The Lancet provides a rare opportunity to see obvious climate data manipulation
Many years ago, I was at a San Francisco Bay Area science exhibit with the kids. One wall was covered with a single wall-sized bar chart showing how much the San Francisco Bay would rise in the future thanks to climate change. Panicked parents around me were warning their children about this deathly future. I was the only one who noticed that the chart was a huge blow-up of an image originally done on a scale using millimeters. If you dig deep, a lot of “climate science” plays those games—and today, it’s The Lancet that created a chart that plays games with the scale.
Climate realist Bjorn Lomborg was reviewing a Lancet article examining excess mortality from heat and cold in Europe. For those who actually read the article, its finding is clear. In Europe, exponentially more people die from cold than from heat:
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.
Fair enough. But of course, most people don’t read lengthy (or even short) articles when they can look at a handy-dandy chart. Now, keeping in mind the above conclusion, which is that deaths from cold in Europe are ten times more likely than deaths from heat, does this chart strike you as funny in any way?
You are correct if you see that the chart, taken purely visually, implies that heat deaths in Europe are almost as likely as deaths from the cold. After all, there’s plenty of red on the right side of the chart to match the blue on the left side.
Lomborg looked more closely at the chart and realized how this could happen: Although blended into one chart, the scale running across the bottom for the death rates is bifurcated. Both scales calculate excess deaths per 100,000 people per year. However, on the left side (deaths from cold), the numbers are 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250; on the right side (deaths from heat), the numbers are 10, 20, 30, 40…250. In other words, the chart visually erases that all-important factor of ten.
Having spotted the fallacy in the original chart, Lomborg created an accurate chart, with the same scale used for both types of excess mortality, and the visual change is staggering:
Heat waves deadly and more frequent bc climate
— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) July 17, 2023
But we're badly informed when not told:
1) solution over next decades:
air-con, cheap energy, more heat-resilient cities
2) ~10x more temperature death from cold
Again, solution cheap energy for heatinghttps://t.co/HoZP282N4K pic.twitter.com/d4JpLsDXIq
Read More Here: American Thinker
Posts
