Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, the authors of the study disagree with your conclusion.
Because they have to genuflect to AGW nonscience.
Cold-related mortality decreased and heat-related mortality increased from 2000 to 2019, causing a net decrease in total deaths. However, it is not correct to interpret that this net decrease was caused by climate change.
Right: it is not
politically correct. But it is logically and factually correct.
We should particularly pay attention to (1) temperature-mortality association, which is ignored by Lomborg.
True: using fossil fuels -- when they are available and affordable -- to stay warm in the winter no doubt saves hundreds of millions of lives every year. You would just prefer to murder those hundreds of millions of people by depriving them of access to cheap, safe, plentiful fossil fuels.
We predicted temperature-mortality association at each location using the continents, indicators for Köppen–Geiger climate classification, GDP per capita, the yearly average of daily mean temperature, and the range of daily mean temperature. The predictors not only include temperature indices but also economic and spatial factors. This means the spatiotemporal variation of temperature-mortality association was not only caused by climate change, but also by economic and spatial factors. The cold-related mortality risk might decrease, because people have the ability (caused by economic increase) to take actions (heating, wear more clothes, drive cars in winter) to prevent cold-related health issues. This will lead to decrease of mortality burden due to cold temperatures.
OK. So how did the temperature-mortality relationship change over the period of the study?
<crickets>
We cannot interpret this part of the decrease to be caused by climate change.
Oh, really? Why not? Because it is not politically permissible...?
If this lying fool had a point (he doesn't), he would
state the measured change in temperature-mortality relationship that he
claims is due to economic increase. He doesn't, because he knows it is immeasurably small and irrelevant.
In this case, the warming of the “2) daily temperature data” would further decrease the mortality burden related to cold temperatures. However, we still need further analyses to separate the contribution of climate change and human adaptation (mainly caused by economic development).
I see. So a lot of people die because of cold temperatures; but if fewer of them die when temperatures are warmer, that decrease in deaths could not have been caused by the warmer temperatures??
Nonscience on stilts. Such a claim is so irrational, so utterly and self-evidently false and dishonest, that no amount ridicule on my part could possibly make it look any more dishonest, absurd, anti-scientific, dishonest, anti-rational, biased and dishonest than it already is on its face.
Lomborg’s conclusion “Climate change saves lives” is biased,
No. But for a far more extreme and illogical example of bias, see:
as climate change does not only influence temperature-related mortality, but also has other direct and indirect impacts. For example, climate change affects flood, drought, air pollution (including bushfire smoke, sand and dust storms), food supply and others which are related to increased risks of mortality. We cannot only focus on temperature and ignore other effects. If we take into account all the factors’ impacts, climate change has serious impacts on human health.
See? The stupid, evil liar you are quoting in support of your false, disingenuous and absurd claims has himself ignored all the positive, life-saving effects of warming climate. He has proved himself far more biased than Lomborg by effectively claiming that the former practice of calling periods of warmer climate "optimums" (before that term was banned for being politically inconvenient) because they are unambiguously better for human survival and prosperity was incorrect -- i.e., he is claiming that greenhouse operators actually get lower, not higher yields than open-field farmers.
I bolded the bit where he explicitly disagreed with your claim.
The fact that he disagreed with the clear logical implications of his own research for political expediency is not my fault.
Then please explain how "the ability (caused by economic increase) to take actions (heating, wear more clothes, drive cars in winter) to prevent cold-related health issues" disproves the claim "that temperature is not a key driver of winter excess mortality".
I never made that non sequitur claim. You simply made it up.