Unthreaded
https://worldivermectinday.org/
tomo
Phil Clarke, you say that the Lancet graph is analysing by age group - correctly.
And you observe that one population (deaths in the cold) is about 10 times greater than the other (deaths in the warm).
But that does not excuse the graph.
All it shows is that the two populations are completely unrelated for the purpose of the study and so should be graphed separately…
Or it might show that the two populations are related to each other (as one goes up the other goes down, for instance) and so they should be graphed together, on the same scale.
It’s a terrible abuse of graphs that will end up in textbooks on how to lie with statistics.
M Courtney
That </.>Lancet?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/lancet-had-to-do-one-of-the-biggest-retractions-in-modern-history-how-could-this-happen
.
's, The Lancet evidently have no scruples left.'
Nah. You're assuming the point of the graph is to compare the size of two populations. But its not - if you glance at the legend you find it is an analysis by age group. As one population is 10x the size of the other it makes perfect sense to scale the axes accordingly.
Jo Nova (and Lomborg and Patick Moore) evidently has no scruples left.
You're welcome.
Phil Clake
After a bit of jiggery pokery I managed to find it on YouTube for those who may want to download it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoJ6sjrQR6Y
Ross Lea
This from Andrew Bolt via Paul Homewood's site.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/07/27/is-the-cure-worse-than-the-disease-andrew-bolt/
I tried and failed to find it on YouTube !
Ross Lea
Ross Lea,
Thanks for those links.
The Neil Oliver one had no surprises, but was very well said.
The Svensmark ideas were on what I'd think is the right sort of scale for the various swings of climate the geologists see. Far more plausible than magical compounding effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now he just has to get the evidence together and get it all published and accepted.
Been a bit busy the last couple of days, so not much to offer from my side. Looking in at Jo Nova's recent offerings, The Lancet evidently have no scruples left. Just outrageous to have different scales for the negative and positive sides of the axis.
Did enjoy the recent Brendan O'Neill podcast interviewing Glenn Loury. Maybe I've been under a rock, but I wasn't aware that the US Supreme Court had ruled "affirmative action" unconstitutional. Loury, being a black university professor (also a Brown University professor :-), but not a leftie, had an interesting take on what it might mean for black students. Some of what he said resonated with my repeated theme that we're all individuals, and trying to squeeze everyone into some theoretical demographic norm is never going to work. I usually say it in the context of medical treatment, but of course it applies in pretty much every dimension of a person.
Robert Swan
An update to Henrik Svensmark's theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_8w6JPLEl8
Ross Lea
Paul Homewood put me on to this excellent video by Niel Oliver a commentator for whom I have much respect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvvBp25eh0U
Ross Lea
Ross Lea,
Bolt was in good form for that video. One thing I haven't heard him mention (not that I listen to him much) is his own removal from the free-to-air media where he used to have his own show. Smaller audience on Sky.
M Courtney,
You're too generous to our occasional troll. He claims it is an "analysis by age group". If that is the case, the authors have made a pig's ear of the graph. A whole axis is dedicated to country. The other axis deals with number of temperature related deaths. This reduces the age group to "which shade of pink is that within the Polish too-hot deaths". People smart enough to get articles published in The Lancet are smart enough to know not to bury the lede.
Several of the same authors have published a similarly biased chart in Nature (see Figure 5). Since age group doesn't appear in that chart at all, I suppose our troll will say that its main goal was to show the source of the weather figures. Uh huh.
In light of that though, perhaps I *have* been unkind to the Lancet. Rather than unscrupulous, maybe it has merely been bamboozled by Mal's Nature trick.
tomo,
Just a *day* for Ivermectin? It deserves a bigger chunk of the year.
Got an extra dose of Brendan O'Neill over the weekend, where he was interviewed for ABC's Counterpoint. Not a particularly good interview, but what struck me was the lousy sound quality, like he was speaking through a drainpipe. ABC doesn't have a small budget for its network connections, and O'Neill manages to have good sound quality for all his over-the-net interviews in his podcasts. Surely the ABC's sound engineer wasn't deliberately degrading the recording of a politically incorrect interviewee?