[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

I see, so you think the study is wrong because a very few people would have died of cold despite your claim that they were better prepared but the scientists ignored this even though they mentioned it.

Is that what yiu are going with?

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
I see, so you think the study is wrong because a very few people would have died of cold despite your claim that they were better prepared

No, despite being better prepared. The relevant facts do not change just because I identify them.

but the scientists ignored this even though they mentioned it.

Where did they mention the fact that people in colder cities tend to be better prepared for the cold?

Is that what yiu are going with?

No, I'm not going with the $#!+ you made up and falsely and disingenuously attributed to me and to the authors of the paper.

[late]

@Truth To Power

I see, so you think the study is wrong because a very few people would have died of cold despite your claim that they were better prepared but the scientists ignored this even though they mentioned it.

Is that what yiu are going with?

Delay, deny, dismiss and dissemble... bog standard propaganda techniques.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, despite being better prepared. The relevant facts do not change just because I identify them.

Where did they mention the fact that people in colder cities tend to be better prepared for the cold?

No, I'm not going with the $#!+ you made up and falsely and disingenuously attributed to me and to the authors of the paper.

Then you need to clarify your criticism and support it.

At this point, it seems like you made something up that may or may not be true (i.e. people in colder cities are prepared for cold snaps)…

… and that this fact is only partly relevant (i.e. there may be a few people whose preparations were not sufficient and would be saved by ACC) …

… and this somehow magically invalidates the study, …

… and therefore supports your claim that we can say that anthropogenic climate change saves lives, according to the Zhou et al study (i.e. the one I presented earlier that contradicts the claim that heat deaths are decreasing).

Is that your claim?

[Truth To Power]

Then you need to clarify your criticism and support it.

No. You need to find a willingness to understand clear, simple, grammatical English, and to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

At this point, it seems like you made something up that may or may not be true (i.e. people in colder cities are prepared for cold snaps)…

It's self-evidently true.

… and that this fact is only partly relevant (i.e. there may be a few people whose preparations were not sufficient and would be saved by ACC) …

Self-evidently true.

… and this somehow magically invalidates the study, …

There is nothing magical about fact and logic.

… and therefore supports your claim that we can say that anthropogenic climate change saves lives, according to the Zhou et al study (i.e. the one I presented earlier that contradicts the claim that heat deaths are decreasing).

Is that your claim?

No, because I didn't claim that heat deaths are decreasing, only that they have decreased, and will decrease in the future.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Once again, are you claiming that ACC saves lives according to the Zhou et al study?

Yes or no?

————

Also, you never explained how being better prepared for cold snaps in colder cities invalidates the claim that deaths saved by warming may be exaggerated. As I pointed out, that supports the claim instead of contradicting it.

[Truth To Power]

delete

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
Once again, are you claiming that ACC saves lives according to the Zhou et al study?

Yes or no?

It's Zhao, not Zhou, and yes: the quote I gave you from that study states explicitly that to the extent that increased temperatures are due to ACC, it is saving lives.

Also, you never explained how being better prepared for cold snaps in colder cities invalidates the claim that deaths saved by warming may be exaggerated.

I most certainly did.

As I pointed out, that supports the claim instead of contradicting it.

No it doesn't. You just can't understand scientific reasoning.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's Zhao, not Zhou, and yes: the quote I gave you from that study states explicitly that to the extent that increased temperatures are due to ACC, it is saving lives.

Well, the authors of the study disagree with your conclusion.

Yuming Guo, Professor at School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University
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. We just estimated the trend of mortality burden related to non-optimal temperatures, but did not do further analysis to examine whether this change is due to climate change or other factors. To calculate the burden related to non-optimal temperatures, we need the following information :
Temperature-mortality association (exposure-response relationship) at each location, for example relative risk of mortality at different daily temperatures.
Daily temperature data at each location.
Mortality rate and population at each location.

As we calculated annual average excess death ratio (attributable fraction of death) and excess death per 100,000 residents, the “mortality rate and population” has been adjusted in the estimation. The main contributors for the change of mortality burden due to non-optimal temperatures are (1) temperature-mortality association and (2) daily temperature data.

We should particularly pay attention to (1) temperature-mortality association, which is ignored by Lomborg. 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.

We cannot interpret this part of the decrease to be caused by climate change. 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).

Lomborg’s conclusion “Climate change saves lives” is biased, 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.

I bolded the bit where he explicitly disagreed with your claim.

I most certainly did.

No it doesn't. You just can't understand scientific reasoning.

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".

If you claim that you have already done so, then repeat yourself or post a link to where you explained it.

[BlutoSays]

[Truth To Power]

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.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because they have to genuflect to AGW nonscience.

Right: it is not politically correct. But it is logically and factually correct.

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.

OK. So how did the temperature-mortality relationship change over the period of the study?

<crickets>

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.

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.

No. But for a far more extreme and illogical example of bias, see:

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.

The fact that he disagreed with the clear logical implications of his own research for political expediency is not my fault.

I never made that non sequitur claim. You simply made it up.

Lots of insults, but no evidence.

At this point, it is fair to claim that you have no real argument and we can move on.

Are you going to make another claim or clarify a previous one?

I can shoot that one down too, using links to, and quotes from, peer reviewed climate studies.

[Truth To Power]

Lots of insults, but no evidence.

You always make the same false claim, no matter how many relevant facts I identify.

At this point, it is fair to claim that you have no real argument and we can move on.

I can shoot that one down too, using links to, and quotes from, peer reviewed climate studies.

No; as we have seen in this thread, all you can do is link to studies that either don't say what you claim they say, don't offer credible empirical evidence for their claims, or actually contradict you.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Actually, the study you used as evidence foe your claim is not evidence for your claim according to the authors.

And I am the one who provided it to counter your claim that heat deaths are decreasing.

Can you provide a single argument that you have made that has not been disproven?

[Truth To Power]

[usermention=39730]Actually, the study you used as evidence foe your claim is not evidence for your claim according to the authors.

But it actually is. The authors merely say that one shouldn't interpret it as saying what it clearly does say.

And I am the one who provided it to counter your claim that heat deaths are decreasing.

Again, that is a claim that you have made up and (repeatedly) falsely attributed to me.

Can you provide a single argument that you have made that has not been disproven?

All of them. All you have managed to do is pummel strawmen that you have made up (see above), and quote authors making the obligatory genuflections to AGW nonscience without actually offering any evidence that any of my statements are factually incorrect.

[late]

[usermention=39730]

@Truth To Power[/usermention]

Actually, the study you used as evidence foe your claim is not evidence for your claim according to the authors.

And I am the one who provided it to counter your claim that heat deaths are decreasing.

Can you provide a single argument that you have made that has not been disproven?

He does propaganda, not science. And he prob gets paid by the word..

[Pants-of-dog]

But it actually is. The authors merely say that one shouldn't interpret it as saying what it clearly does say.

Again, that is a claim that you have made up and (repeatedly) falsely attributed to me.

All of them. All you have managed to do is pummel strawmen that you have made up (see above), and quote authors making the obligatory genuflections to AGW nonscience without actually offering any evidence that any of my statements are factually incorrect.

This is not an argument.

This is you simply refusing to accept what the authors of a study say about their own study.

Again, it is not climate change saving lives from the cold. It is central heating, warm blankets, and other methods of protecting vulnerable populations.

[Truth To Power]

This is not an argument.

More accurately, just claiming an argument is not an argument is not an argument.

This is you simply refusing to accept what the authors of a study say about their own study.

That's right. Any time a study's findings or conclusions are not actually valid, the people who tell the truth about the study refuse to accept what the authors say about their own study. That is how bad science is identified and removed.

Again, it is not climate change saving lives from the cold. It is central heating, warm blankets, and other methods of protecting vulnerable populations.

Again, that is just blatant anti-rationality and anti-science. It is self-evident and indisputable that if cold kills people -- which it indisputably does -- then less cold ("climate change") will kill fewer people. Of course, you could -- and on form, probably will -- make the claim that climate change -- i.e., CO2 -- causes both weather that is too hot and weather that is too cold, too wet as well as too dry, too windy as well as too calm. But that is also just blatant anti-rationality and anti-science.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Studies are not lies or wrong simply because they disagree with you.

That is not how science works.

[Steve_American]

More accurately, just claiming an argument is not an argument is not an argument.

That's right. Any time a study's findings or conclusions are not actually valid, the people who tell the truth about the study refuse to accept what the authors say about their own study. That is how bad science is identified and removed.

Again, that is just blatant anti-rationality and anti-science. It is self-evident and indisputable that if cold kills people -- which it indisputably does -- then less cold ("climate change") will kill fewer people. Of course, you could -- and on form, probably will -- make the claim that climate change -- i.e., CO2 -- causes both weather that is too hot and weather that is too cold, too wet as well as too dry, too windy as well as too calm. But that is also just blatant anti-rationality and anti-science.

Lurkers, I don't respond to Truth to Power on ACC, because he never replies with anything more than a simple denial.
In this case (the part I highlighted), he has said this several times. One time I pointed out the the many freezing deaths from the cold in Texas 2 winters ago was caused by the waviness of the jet stream that is being caused by ACC. He just ignored me.
The waviness is being caused by ACC and it is causing more extreme weather including very cold waves, heat waves, droughts, and flooding rains. TtP ignores this, and keeps making his denials.
.