Two comments. First, as a layperson who attempts to monitor the climate science debate while pursuing my other professional activities I would encourage you to continue to utilize this format in addition to your in-depth posts. It efficiently alerted me to several interesting events which I can then pursue further if I desire. Second, as an actuary and statistician at various points in my career, I think if anything your characterization of the chart in the Lancet article as egregiously misleading was if anything too kind to the authors. Irrespective of their goals and intent, it is at odds when any reasonable method of presenting complex statistical dats in a neutral and understandable format. In my opinion, the usage of two different horizontal scales to present supposedly comparable date is equivalent to the oft misused charts that greatly exaggerate the data variability and/ or trends conveyed by scaling from a non zero axis. That the Lancet published this suggests either sloppiness in their editing or political bias in their agreement with the misleading impression that it conveyed.
I had a lot of positive responses to this format of post - a lot of quick hits with some commentary. So I will indeed include more of this type of format in the future, thanks!
I found this sort of “quick capsule” roundup of stories, quotes and goings-on useful in addition to the more fully elucidated writing I normally read here. I’d be happy to read more material in this form at THB.
Your “Chart Crime report” worries me because it risks harming your own pursuit of fairness and honesty.
Starting with terms such as “crime” and “caught red-handed” in combination with “lent itself to misinterpretation” is mixing two different categories. The first one is related to the intention of the authors. The second one is related to potential sloppy reading and use by some readers, or even to deliberate misuse.
Your rhetorical question to your readers on making their own decision is made by referring to an incomplete version of Figure 3 in the Lancet paper. Evidence on authorial intent is found in the figure caption: Figure 3: Country-level cold (in blue) and heat (in red) annual raw death rates broken down by age group. This caption is missing in your reproduced version of the figure.
Reading the PDF reprint of the paper, the following can be found.
1. In its summary, under Findings, the article clearly states: 203 620 of the annual excess deaths are attributed to cold and 20 173 to heat.
2. In Table 2, these numbers are found as European totals, together with a detailed breakdown for countries in clearly distinguishable columns for cold- and heat-related excess deaths.
3. On the page of the incriminated Figure 3, the same totals are quoted again just before the explanation of the purpose of Figure 3. This purpose is to show raw death excess rates broken down by age groups at the country level.
The suggestive alternative version of Lomborg is quite poor in view of the well stated purpose of the figure. For example, health officers who want to compare age group information for the cold and heat categories in their own country or for the heat category in other countries are greatly hampered by the suboptimal resolution of Lomborgs alternative.
Of course, the authors might have added a warning in the figure caption about the different scaling. However, the impression that they didn't see “crime prevention” as their task does not justify the exaggerated criticism that is “going viral” in the blogosphere of climate-catastrophism skeptics.
I hope that you will contribute to breaking the chain of these “clones of exaggeration” by nuancing your criticism. Your current criticism is offensive to the authors and the editor of the article, which I do regret.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. A few responses.
1. We should all be so fortunate to have readers who pay as close attention to detail as you do here. That said, not all readers read that closely and really should not be expected to. If you read through these comments you will find at least one reader who misinterpreted the graph.
2. Given the authors stated intent with the figures, the presentation is even worse. If the goal was to show differences across age groups then a simple pie chart for each country or even a stacked bar would have served that purpose even better. Had this been a data viz submission in my quantitative methods of policy analysis course I'd have returned the graph to the student with encouragement to try again.
3. I'm not worried if I have offended the authors or editors, they are professionals.
4. I will admit to a degree of irreverence in parts of this post. Even here at THB there will be occasions where I take things more or less seriously. This was an egregiously bad graph (and perhaps on that we can simply agree to disagree), but at the same time it is not a big deal compared to more important issues, like the continued reliance on RCP8.5.
Jan, Thanks. We may have a translation issue here, a "chart crime" is not an allegation of intent or criminal activity, far from it. It is a very common English idiom used to described poor data viz practices, e.g., see this headline and Google "chart crime"
I should be more aware of the possibilities of miscommunication if I write too informally using common (but maybe not widely appreciated) American English idioms, else I risk walking in the soup! ;-)
And i would like you to address the claim i have heard every day for the last week, that July was the hottest month the world has seen in 125k years, something there is no way to know even if it was true, but is clearly not true.
"Human-induced climate change is real and terrible".
Roger, i read your blog, right here, this very page, you are always pointing out where the doomsayers have it wrong, pointing to all the relevant sections in the IPCC data that shows there is no emergency.
No increase in severe weather, droughts, heat waves, etc etc etc. So why reprint this obvious falsehood without calling it out?
Or rewrite it?
"Human-induced climate change is undoubtedly real but is small and hard to measure, as per the actual IPCC data. Some day it may be an issue but at this time all we have are incredibly flawed models on which to base future predictions."
Quotes.
Incredibly funny and sad to see Piltdown Mann saying climate scientists shouldn't cherry pick data or individual weather events because that's what evildoer deniers do.
Can he even spell the word shame?
The Times and Axios. Is there anyone left who can read and think that doesn't understand that all of this is about narrative control and absolutely nothing about science or climate?
Krugman was a disaster as an economist, can he please stay out of the climate lane, there is enough disaster there already? Please?
I had to look at that excess deaths graph in the Lancet article link to actually believe the Lancet published it. It's hard to believe anyone would consider that an ethical presentation of the data.
It's ironic to see Michael Mann quoted in this. He's the guy who eliminated the Medieval warming Period from his data to develop his infamous "hockey stick".
Please note that the Paleotempestology section above clearly shows hurricane activity much higher in the medieval warm period than now and if temps drive hurricanes then clearly it was much warmer then than it is now.
Here’s a quote from Michael Mann from 2016: “What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle.”
Maybe he’s trying to “be better” than he used to be.
With the abundance of alternative hypotheses to explain the warming and a bunch of papers noting the small effect of CO2 on the temperature change (with many claiming none!) and the knowledge that we doubled the water content in the troposphere / stratosphere... how can you continue to irritate me with your claimed support of the unsettled man made theory??
This is a very good article on the new paper and discussion surrounding it (and good evidence that there is still some good climate reporting out there!):
I agree with you in a way Roger, but the piece starts with doom and ends with it. Few readers in todays (western) world will pick up the good news wrapped in all the doom.
I think there is a great risk with the apocalyptic narative: once people realize how much of the emissions are not controlled by the EU, Canada and the US, they might draw the conclusion that our actions alone might be insignificant and that the prophesized apocalyps is inevitable. Which could lead to all sorts of cultural changes. Not unlike the fear for the a-bomb in the 70’s and 80’s.
I'm quite curious about the difference in scale that produced the different visual results in the charts of the Masselot et al. data. The annotations on the charts appear to be identical.
Two comments. First, as a layperson who attempts to monitor the climate science debate while pursuing my other professional activities I would encourage you to continue to utilize this format in addition to your in-depth posts. It efficiently alerted me to several interesting events which I can then pursue further if I desire. Second, as an actuary and statistician at various points in my career, I think if anything your characterization of the chart in the Lancet article as egregiously misleading was if anything too kind to the authors. Irrespective of their goals and intent, it is at odds when any reasonable method of presenting complex statistical dats in a neutral and understandable format. In my opinion, the usage of two different horizontal scales to present supposedly comparable date is equivalent to the oft misused charts that greatly exaggerate the data variability and/ or trends conveyed by scaling from a non zero axis. That the Lancet published this suggests either sloppiness in their editing or political bias in their agreement with the misleading impression that it conveyed.
Missed one
Paleotempestology.
If hurricane activity is higher in warmer climate then this graph shows that the medieval warm period was clearly warmer than the current period.
Which is what we all knew, until the Hockey Team got busy.
Are these authors aware they just obliterated the hockey stick?
Maybe Mann can find one treemometer on the Yamal peninsula that refutes this solid science?
I had a lot of positive responses to this format of post - a lot of quick hits with some commentary. So I will indeed include more of this type of format in the future, thanks!
Short bites
Stimulate discussion on multiple fronts
Several Substack are doing this
I like it
I found this sort of “quick capsule” roundup of stories, quotes and goings-on useful in addition to the more fully elucidated writing I normally read here. I’d be happy to read more material in this form at THB.
Dear Roger,
Your “Chart Crime report” worries me because it risks harming your own pursuit of fairness and honesty.
Starting with terms such as “crime” and “caught red-handed” in combination with “lent itself to misinterpretation” is mixing two different categories. The first one is related to the intention of the authors. The second one is related to potential sloppy reading and use by some readers, or even to deliberate misuse.
Your rhetorical question to your readers on making their own decision is made by referring to an incomplete version of Figure 3 in the Lancet paper. Evidence on authorial intent is found in the figure caption: Figure 3: Country-level cold (in blue) and heat (in red) annual raw death rates broken down by age group. This caption is missing in your reproduced version of the figure.
Reading the PDF reprint of the paper, the following can be found.
1. In its summary, under Findings, the article clearly states: 203 620 of the annual excess deaths are attributed to cold and 20 173 to heat.
2. In Table 2, these numbers are found as European totals, together with a detailed breakdown for countries in clearly distinguishable columns for cold- and heat-related excess deaths.
3. On the page of the incriminated Figure 3, the same totals are quoted again just before the explanation of the purpose of Figure 3. This purpose is to show raw death excess rates broken down by age groups at the country level.
The suggestive alternative version of Lomborg is quite poor in view of the well stated purpose of the figure. For example, health officers who want to compare age group information for the cold and heat categories in their own country or for the heat category in other countries are greatly hampered by the suboptimal resolution of Lomborgs alternative.
Of course, the authors might have added a warning in the figure caption about the different scaling. However, the impression that they didn't see “crime prevention” as their task does not justify the exaggerated criticism that is “going viral” in the blogosphere of climate-catastrophism skeptics.
I hope that you will contribute to breaking the chain of these “clones of exaggeration” by nuancing your criticism. Your current criticism is offensive to the authors and the editor of the article, which I do regret.
Best regards,
Jan W. Verheij, The Netherlands
Jan,
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. A few responses.
1. We should all be so fortunate to have readers who pay as close attention to detail as you do here. That said, not all readers read that closely and really should not be expected to. If you read through these comments you will find at least one reader who misinterpreted the graph.
2. Given the authors stated intent with the figures, the presentation is even worse. If the goal was to show differences across age groups then a simple pie chart for each country or even a stacked bar would have served that purpose even better. Had this been a data viz submission in my quantitative methods of policy analysis course I'd have returned the graph to the student with encouragement to try again.
3. I'm not worried if I have offended the authors or editors, they are professionals.
4. I will admit to a degree of irreverence in parts of this post. Even here at THB there will be occasions where I take things more or less seriously. This was an egregiously bad graph (and perhaps on that we can simply agree to disagree), but at the same time it is not a big deal compared to more important issues, like the continued reliance on RCP8.5.
Thanks again!
Dear Roger,
Thanks for your reply.
Most of it is agreeable, or at least I can live with it.
Still cannot accept your clear association to criminal intent for, what would be, a weak editorial decision.
Best wishes,
Jan
Jan, Thanks. We may have a translation issue here, a "chart crime" is not an allegation of intent or criminal activity, far from it. It is a very common English idiom used to described poor data viz practices, e.g., see this headline and Google "chart crime"
https://www.ft.com/content/ebc7d70c-0d28-4dc9-8006-de9a8be11981
I can accept that. But does that still hold in your combination with “caught red-handed”?
Yes, of course
I should be more aware of the possibilities of miscommunication if I write too informally using common (but maybe not widely appreciated) American English idioms, else I risk walking in the soup! ;-)
OK, is it what it is.
And i would like you to address the claim i have heard every day for the last week, that July was the hottest month the world has seen in 125k years, something there is no way to know even if it was true, but is clearly not true.
The Big Lie, writ large.
The IRON LAW
"Human-induced climate change is real and terrible".
Roger, i read your blog, right here, this very page, you are always pointing out where the doomsayers have it wrong, pointing to all the relevant sections in the IPCC data that shows there is no emergency.
No increase in severe weather, droughts, heat waves, etc etc etc. So why reprint this obvious falsehood without calling it out?
Or rewrite it?
"Human-induced climate change is undoubtedly real but is small and hard to measure, as per the actual IPCC data. Some day it may be an issue but at this time all we have are incredibly flawed models on which to base future predictions."
Quotes.
Incredibly funny and sad to see Piltdown Mann saying climate scientists shouldn't cherry pick data or individual weather events because that's what evildoer deniers do.
Can he even spell the word shame?
The Times and Axios. Is there anyone left who can read and think that doesn't understand that all of this is about narrative control and absolutely nothing about science or climate?
Krugman was a disaster as an economist, can he please stay out of the climate lane, there is enough disaster there already? Please?
I had to look at that excess deaths graph in the Lancet article link to actually believe the Lancet published it. It's hard to believe anyone would consider that an ethical presentation of the data.
It's ironic to see Michael Mann quoted in this. He's the guy who eliminated the Medieval warming Period from his data to develop his infamous "hockey stick".
Please note that the Paleotempestology section above clearly shows hurricane activity much higher in the medieval warm period than now and if temps drive hurricanes then clearly it was much warmer then than it is now.
Someone should ask Piltdown about that.
Here’s a quote from Michael Mann from 2016: “What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle.”
Maybe he’s trying to “be better” than he used to be.
As Roger reports, the IPCC data does not support the emergency scenario, so Piltdown Mann is simply making it up.
Or Roger and the IPCC are making it all up.
Since i see no climate change where i live on the canadian prairies, just a whole bunch of natural variation, i'll go with Piltdown for the win.
Wow, that chart is particularly egregious!!
With the abundance of alternative hypotheses to explain the warming and a bunch of papers noting the small effect of CO2 on the temperature change (with many claiming none!) and the knowledge that we doubled the water content in the troposphere / stratosphere... how can you continue to irritate me with your claimed support of the unsettled man made theory??
+1 for highlighting Ryan Maue’s posts on Twitter. Ryan has a very informative and unique perspective.
Thank you for your insightful articles Roger. I wonder if you could shed more light on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.
This is a very good article on the new paper and discussion surrounding it (and good evidence that there is still some good climate reporting out there!):
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/climate-collapse-debate-reinvigorated-study-atlantic-ocean-currents-rcna95201
I agree with you in a way Roger, but the piece starts with doom and ends with it. Few readers in todays (western) world will pick up the good news wrapped in all the doom.
I think there is a great risk with the apocalyptic narative: once people realize how much of the emissions are not controlled by the EU, Canada and the US, they might draw the conclusion that our actions alone might be insignificant and that the prophesized apocalyps is inevitable. Which could lead to all sorts of cultural changes. Not unlike the fear for the a-bomb in the 70’s and 80’s.
Thanks, Roger. Lot of interesting stuff here, especially the Masselot graph. Ron
I'm quite curious about the difference in scale that produced the different visual results in the charts of the Masselot et al. data. The annotations on the charts appear to be identical.
Brec, I suggest you look a little more closely at the RH X axis...
Ah, yes indeed!