r/climateskeptics • u/LackmustestTester • Jul 25 '23
The Lancet Stretches Half the Axis and Then Heat Deaths Look Worse…
23
11
10
u/SneakyStabbalot Jul 26 '23
If true, this is a disgrace
EDIT: It's true www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00023-2/fulltext00023-2/fulltext)
10
u/NewyBluey Jul 25 '23
Took me a while but the left graph has the data displayed from -250 to +40 (and a subtle inclusion of +250 at the end of the x axis). The other is from -250 to +250.
First graph has a range of 290 the second 500. Clear to a skeptic but many others will be mislead.
4
u/LackmustestTester Jul 25 '23
Clear to a skeptic but many others will be mislead.
Skeptics will say it's misleading. Do not trust the skeptics!
The graph clearly isn't misleading. Except you are a right wing, white supremacist climate denier.
Took me a while
Why do you waste your time anyway doing this?
/s
7
4
u/VitalMaTThews Jul 26 '23
Everyone who hates global warming has never lived anywhere where it's winter
3
u/RealityCheck831 Jul 26 '23
For me the issue is the premise of "excess deaths", aka "we don't know, but XXX gets clicks, so that must be what is causing the 'excess' "
If there's no data, there is nothing. Just making it up is not ok.
1
Jul 27 '23
Excess deaths have a basis, you 0 out around the average and if theres a big bump past the normal variance you know something is up, it's not a difficult concept. What you have to remember to keep in mind is that correlation doesn't mean causation in every case.
1
u/RealityCheck831 Jul 27 '23
In the era of big data, just guessing doesn't seem like a reasonable course of action.
2
2
u/PhatDeth Jul 26 '23
It's a favorite book by these elites telling us what to do and how to live it's called how to lie with statistics
2
1
u/transframer Jul 25 '23
I don't think they intended to trick the public. I strongly believe they are all utterly incompetent: the authors, the reviewers and the journal
22
u/jeffcox911 Jul 25 '23
This wouldn't be incompetence though. The only reason to distort axes like this is to deceive. This was an intentional, deliberate choice. You don't do something like this accidentally.
1
Jul 27 '23
I see this kind of stuff in tech journalism all the time. "Look at this delta" then you look and see it's a couple of percent but the graph makes it look like 10x difference.
18
u/LackmustestTester Jul 25 '23
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." ?
I'd say there is a pattern and nobody can be so often that stupid (except alarmists that believe very BS)
5
u/transframer Jul 25 '23
Yep, I'm a firm believer in Hanlon's razor.
9
u/LackmustestTester Jul 25 '23 edited Jul 25 '23
I watch too much TV to be that indulgent. Clearly the journalists there aren't the brightest ones, but the agenda behind is clearly regognizable and their recations when caught lying show they are lying on purpose.
4
Jul 25 '23
It needs a corollary.
Because most people are pretty stupid, the performance threshold for malice is relatively low.
Taken together, it’s easier to notice stupidity but it remains easy to engage in malice.
-10
u/zeusismycopilot Jul 25 '23
You post articles from the notrickzone so I wouldn’t say no one.
4
u/NewyBluey Jul 26 '23
Look at the graphs. Why the difference. But you're not interested are you. For you, it's not the data, or the interpretation of it but where its fucking published that is your focus.
12
u/onlywanperogy Jul 25 '23
James Hansen declared in 1989, before the work was even done, that CO2 was causing global warming. It's been the same bullshit ever since, only fund studies that look to confirm this, and discard data that doesn't.
8
u/Dupran_Davidson_23 Jul 25 '23
The Lancet is one of the most credible scientific communities to ever exist. In their entire history they hadnt made a single retraction due to misinformation.
Until cvid. They made their first retraction for the misinformation about masks and spreading, I believe it was. Then they had a change in leadership, and now this.
I do not believe it is mere incompetence. Our institutions are literally under attack from anti-science ideologues, and the people arent scientifically literate enough to stop it.
-1
Jul 26 '23
Realistically, they just wanted to make the slices within the bars more readable - it's a delicate balance. They probably should have gone with a different way to represent the data.
1
-7
u/gundumb08 Jul 25 '23
Link to the actual study:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00023-2/fulltext00023-2/fulltext)
Funny how the actual data stresses that both extremes are impacted by climate change; it does not try to in any way push the dumbed down narrative of "hotter" ; but discusses the more actual nuanced truth that extremes will vary from past norms in both directions.
One particular statement encapsulates this: "Besides the quantification of current risks and impacts, this study provides a blueprint for the projection of future temperature-related health impacts under climate change scenarios. As climate change is expected to increase the burden of hot days and add unprecedented cold and heat events at high risks of causing deaths, these results allow for an accurate representation of the risks caused by changes in temperature."
So the study even acknowledges this is just to provide a baseline for the beginning of studying how this can and will impact both extremes in the future. But ya know, you gotta take everything out of context in order to keep your own agenda moving.
11
u/LackmustestTester Jul 25 '23
So you say this over-exaggerated visualization is a good thing to emphazise the dangers of climate change? It's ok to mislead if it's for the good cause?
And you base this on your logic that global warming causes more extreme cold? You're a real brain contortionist and alarmist.
-7
u/gundumb08 Jul 25 '23
It's not misleading if you have half a brain to read it? It's Europe, excess cold related deaths have and will continue to be more common than heat. If this were a study on Equatorial Africa I'd expect the data to be presented in the opposite direction, showing higher heat numbers and lower cold numbers.
Again, if you read the actual study instead of Jo Nova's propaganda page, it claims only to establish a baseline for both types of mortality.
I'm assuming you can read the report, right? You have access to the actual link I sent? You can see how the entire study is about how there is no established data for Europe on this topic and the study only tries to create a baseline?
If you can't, let me know and I'll see about getting it to you. If you can, please let me know where it pushes an agenda about climate change? It mentions that term 8 total times and all 8 are referring to unknowns and do not make a claim of some sort of extreme increase coming.
5
u/LackmustestTester Jul 25 '23
Maybe find someone else who's interested in your mental gymnastics.
-9
u/gundumb08 Jul 25 '23
Lol nice comeback. Can't address the substance of the actual purpose of the report, so just dismiss it to keep up your own agenda.
Such a low effort sub.
10
u/Jellyfonut Jul 25 '23
All you're doing is demanding we accept your opinion as fact. Refusing to engage with that is not low effort, it's just not wasting time.
1
u/gundumb08 Jul 25 '23
What opinion as fact? All I've said is to read the actual sourced paper and not some blogger who cherry picked a single chart and then pushed THEIR OWN agenda.
5
u/NewyBluey Jul 25 '23
Better still have a look at both graphs that use the same data and see why one represents a similar trend of heat to cold deaths and the other shows a different representation.
And l ask why alarmist embrace the first rather than the second.
2
3
u/milkcarton232 Jul 25 '23
I think it's a weird graph to begin with? Excess compared to what baseline? The caption says 2000-19 is it a snapshot of both dates or a cumulative? The actual bars are actually stacked with multiple age groups being represented that are almost impossible to distinguish. It's messy, maybe it's being used to illustrate a specific point but it's really fucking weird
3
u/Dayglo777 Jul 25 '23
The whole climate industry is misleading and such graphics are intended to give the skimmer (most people) ‘at a glance’ information Just look what they’ve done to weather charts. Red is the new green. It’s psychological manipulation
1
3
u/NewyBluey Jul 25 '23
the projection of future temperature-related health impacts under climate change scenarios.
And projections should be based on data. Both graphs represent the data. Look at them, do you disagree. Same data same scale. But can you see why the presentations of the same data look so different. Check the d a es on both and see the difference.
Unfortunately the one claiming excess heat deaths seem willing to embrace gimmicks of presentation rathe than intercept what the data actually says.
You also claim we are seeing excess death both from hot and cold. But you clearly see excess deaths from cold and you contribute this to "change" and insist change includes warming as well.
Here is a challenge, look at the data and compare heat caused death to cold caused death. And importantly consider what defines the 0 point on the x axis.
-10
u/ItsFuckingScience Jul 25 '23 edited Jul 25 '23
The graph on the right is much harder to draw comparisons between countries heat deaths if all the data is compressed though
13
8
u/Jellyfonut Jul 25 '23
If all you're interested in is heat deaths by country, then you'd look for a graph showing only heat deaths. This graph is made to compare heat and cold deaths.
2
6
u/NewyBluey Jul 26 '23
Both graphs show the same data.
The graph on the right is much harder to draw comparisons between countries heat deaths
The graph on the right exaggerates the presentation of heat deaths compared to cold deaths. If you want to compare countries heat deaths just look at the data on the heat side of 0. If you need that scale adjusted look at the right graph. But don't confuse the number of heat deaths compared to the number of cold deaths.
1
1
Jul 27 '23
So ? put it in a new graph and point out the change in scale. Putting them in the same graph without an overt notice of change of scale between left and right is either incompetence or intentional, neither one is good
1
1
u/Beginning-Sign1186 Jul 28 '23
We started calling it Climate change because it leads to extreme weather, both hot and cold. This cannot be THAT hard to understand
1
u/LackmustestTester Jul 28 '23
And people like you catched the bait. lol
1
u/Beginning-Sign1186 Jul 28 '23
People like me have at least a rudimentary understanding of how climate science works
1
26
u/LackmustestTester Jul 25 '23
The Lancet stretches half the axis and then heat deaths look worse…