NYTimes and Nature falsely claim one-third of heatwaves due to climate change

Posted: June 3, 2021 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Critique, Natural Variation, propaganda, Temperature
Tags: ,

Credit: airbus.com

As this article says: ‘The wealth of scientific evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that cold, not heat, kills.’ But anything alarmist, however tenuous, seems to get a free pass from so-called ‘fact checkers’ who want humans to be blamed for any real or imagined climate variation.
– – –

Recently, there have been a number of media stories claiming modest global warming has caused more than a third of heat-related death around the world between 1991 and 2018, says H. Sterling Burnett @ Climate Change Dispatch.

These stories all reference a single study published in Nature Climate Change to support their claims. This study is purely speculative, based on climate model projections and epidemiological studies that don’t control for significant confounding factors.

By contrast, numerous studies show, a modestly warmer world should result in fewer temperature-related deaths overall, not more.

The New York Times story, titled “More Than a Third of Heat Deaths Are Tied to Climate Change, Study Says,” is typical of the mainstream media’s uncritical, fawning coverage of the Nature Climate Change study.

“More than a third of heat-related deaths in many parts of the world can be attributed to the extra warming associated with climate change, according to a new study that makes a case for taking strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to protect public health,” writes the New York Times.

“The sweeping new research, published on Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, was conducted by 70 researchers using data from major projects in the fields of epidemiology and climate modeling in 43 countries. It found that heat-related deaths in warm seasons were boosted by climate change by an average of 37 percent, in a range of a 20 percent increase to 76 percent.”

Rather than “sweeping” and “new”, the study should be referred to a speculative and untested. One of the researchers asked by the Times to comment on the study referred to it as “clever,” which seems apt, but that’s not a compliment.

It is unclear how much of the modest 1℃ warming of the past 150 years is due to human greenhouse gas emissions.

As a result, directly attributing any individual heat-related death or any percentage of heat-related deaths to the portion of the heat supposedly enhanced by human influences is purely speculative at best, and impossible at worst.

Full article here.

  1. oldbrew says:

    Talking about attribution is meaningless without certainty on natural climate variation, and there isn’t any.

  2. Gamecock says:

    With global warming causing more than a third of heat-related deaths around the world between 1991 and 2018 (sic), they should have no trouble providing us some names.

    Habeas corpus.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Same old, same old…this was posted > 10 years ago…

    Overconfidence in IPCC’s detection and attribution: Part I
    Posted on October 17, 2010
    by Judith Curry

    – – –
    Overconfidence maybe. More like bluffing?

  4. stpaulchuck says:

    I commented this over at JunkScience dot com:

    first off, different date ranges! That alone is a big tell that this is BS, and a BIG second, correlation is NOT causation. They just used unvetted raw numbers which is stupid and unscientific. Did they audit the death certificates looking for heat related cause of death? Obviously not. A junior high school science class would have done a more professional job of it.


  5. Phoenix44 says:

    The range is from 0% to 100%. That’s just logic. And with no plausible method to narrow the range it remains that. And this is meaningless. This is what Hayek called scientism, the use of the tools and methods of science without it being actual science.

  6. Gamecock says:

    And ‘false precision,’ Phoenix. The usual flag for false precision is the use of decimal points in generalized information. This “More Than a Third of Heat Deaths” appears to be generalized, yet it is completely made up. They use maths to act like they know, to convince you that they know.

    But the range could be less than zero. I.e., warmer weather is likely to be causing FEWER deaths.

  7. pochas94 says:

    Journalists live in a fantasy land.

  8. Gamecock says:

    False precision fallacy update: I looked at the study report, and it actually says ‘37.0%.’

    Point zero. Precise to 3 digits.

    Click to access Nature-heat.pdf

    A red flag appears at the very beginning. The more authors on a report, the more likely it is junk. This thing has literally dozens of authors. Screaming junk.

  9. oldbrew says:

    the additional heat exposure that has resulted from recent human-induced warming

    As they have no way of accurately (or at all) quantifying such ‘human-induced warming’, and it could even be near to zero (+ or -), the rest can’t be taken seriously.

  10. hunterson7 says:

    Compared to historical heatwave mortality, the rational conclusion is that heatwaves are decreasing. Add to that the reduction in famines and the rational conclusion is obvious. But then again we are dealing with a post-modern, post-honest age issue….

  11. Tom Williams says:

    The “pundits” seem to ignore the impact of geothermal energy and lava (igneous intrusions). After all, the Earth’s core is as hot as the Sun’s surface. Siberia has record heat – but the ground is hotter than the air – coming from the core?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s