Arguments
Skeptical Science New Research for Week #1 2025
Posted on 2 January 2025 by Doug Bostrom, Marc Kodack
Open access notables
Why Misinformation Must Not Be Ignored, Ecker et al., American Psychologist:
Recent academic debate has seen the emergence of the claim that misinformation is not a significant societal problem. We argue that the arguments used to support this minimizing position are flawed, particularly if interpreted (e.g., by policymakers or the public) as suggesting that misinformation can be safely ignored. Here, we rebut the two main claims, namely that misinformation is not of substantive concern (a) due to its low incidence and (b) because it has no causal influence on notable political or behavioral outcomes. Through a critical review of the current literature, we demonstrate that (a) the prevalence of misinformation is nonnegligible if reasonably inclusive definitions are applied and that (b) misinformation has causal impacts on important beliefs and behaviors. Both scholars and policymakers should therefore continue to take misinformation seriously.
Recent ice melt above a mantle plume track is accelerating the uplift of Southeast Greenland, Weerdesteijn & Conrad Conrad, Communications Earth & Environment:
Around the periphery of the Greenland ice sheet, satellite-based observations of ground uplift record Earth’s response to past and recent unloading of Greenland’s ice mass. On the southeast coast, near the Kangerlussuaq glacier, rapid uplift exceeding 12 mm/yr cannot be explained using current layered Earth deformation models. Here we find that 3D models with a weakened Earth structure, consistent with the passage of Greenland over the Iceland plume, can explain the rapid uplift of Southeast Greenland. This uplift is dominated by a viscous response that is accelerated by the low viscosities of the hot plume track. Recent mass loss, occurring during the last millennium and especially within the past few decades, drives most of the uplift. Holocene indicators recorded similarly rapid uplift following deglaciation that ended the last ice age. Such rapid uplift, occurring beneath marine terminating glaciers, can affect the future stability of entire ice catchment areas and will become increasingly important in the near future as deglaciation accelerates.
An intensification of surface Earth’s energy imbalance since the late 20th century, Li et al., Communications Earth & Environment:
Tracking the energy balance of the Earth system is a key method for studying the contribution of human activities to climate change. However, accurately estimating the surface energy balance has long been a challenge, primarily due to uncertainties that dwarf the energy flux changes induced and a lack of precise observational data at the surface. We have employed the Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) method, integrating it with recent developments in surface solar radiation observational data, to refine the ensemble of CMIP6 model outputs. This has resulted in an enhanced estimation of Surface Earth System Energy Imbalance (EEI) changes since the late 19th century. Our findings show that CMIP6 model outputs, constrained by this observational data, reflect changes in energy imbalance consistent with observations in Ocean Heat Content (OHC), offering a narrower uncertainty range at the 95% confidence level than previous estimates. Observing the EEI series, dominated by changes due to external forcing, we note a relative stability (0.22 Wm−2) over the past half-century, but with a intensification (reaching 0.80 Wm−2) in the mid to late 1990s, indicating an escalation in the adverse impacts of global warming and climate change, which provides another independent confirmation of what recent studies have shown.
A mid-20th century stratigraphical Anthropocene is recognisable in the birth-area of the industrial revolution, Sellers et al., The Anthropocene Review:
The formalisation of the Anthropocene as a subdivision of the Geological Time Scale has been under debate. Its stratigraphic boundary has been proposed as a precise Global boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) in the mid-20th century, but it is part of an episode of human-induced changes to the Earth System that have unfolded over millennia. Here we attempt to identify stratigraphical patterns of the Anthropocene from a previously well studied lake sedimentary archive from the English Midlands, located in one of the most heavily human-modified landscapes in the UK, and the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. Our analysis is predicated on the sedimentary succession of Groby Pool, a small lake situated to the immediate northwest of Leicester. We have found that whilst proxy signals for biotic change are indicative of significant landscape and consequent ecological changes prior to the 20th century, the signal from radiogenic fallout and rapid increase in spheroidal carbonaceous particles indicative of fossil-fuel combustion yield a clear mid and later 20th century stratigraphical signature that corresponds with the Great Acceleration of the post-WWII period. We therefore demonstrate clear stratigraphical signatures in the oldest Industrial Revolution landscape on Earth that are consistent with a mid-20th century start point for the Anthropocene.
From this week's government/NGO section:
The Risks of Climate Change to the United States in the 21st Century, Nielsen et al., Congressional Budget Office
The economic effects of climate change will depend on the extent of its physical effects. Those effects are highly uncertain. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2100, there is a 5 percent chance that average global temperatures will be more than 4 degrees Celsius (4°C) warmer than they were in the latter half of the 19th century and an equal chance that they will have risen by less than 2°C. In the United States, sea levels have a 5 percent chance of rising by about 4 feet or more by 2100 and an equal chance of rising by about 2 feet or less. Damage from natural disasters is also expected to increase. The uncertainty of climate change’s physical effects implies a wide range of possible economic consequences, ranging from benign to catastrophic. In this report, CBO focuses, where possible, on the 5th and 95th percentiles of the distributions of potential outcomes. The authors examine the possible economic effects of climate change on gross domestic product (GDP), real estate markets, and other areas that influence the economy and the federal budget.
When Risks Become Reality: Extreme Weather In 2024, Otto et al., World Weather Attribution
Every December, we’re asked if it was a bad year for extreme weather. The answer is increasingly clear: yes. The authors look back at 2024, highlighting the devastating consequences of climate change and exposing our collective unpreparedness again and again in the 29 extremes that were studied in depth. Heatwaves continue to claim lives, floods devastate communities, and droughts obliterate crops and livelihoods. Although El Niño made some extreme weather events more likely, its influence on extreme weather was often over-emphasised.
Counting the Cost 2024. A year of climate breakdown, Joe Ware and Oliver Pearce, Christian Aid
This year's Counting the Cost report reveals the shocking cost of the world's worst claimed disasters. These climate disasters serve as a stark warning of what lies ahead if we fail to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. They also highlight the critical need for adaptation measures, particularly in the Global South, where resources are limited, and communities face heightened vulnerability to extreme weather events. The analysis list features disasters featured in the news from all over the world – from U.S. storms like Hurricane Milton and Helene, to the China, Bavaria, and Valencia floods.
93 articles in 44 journals by 646 contributing authors
Physical science of climate change, effects
Future increase in compound soil drought-heat extremes exacerbated by vegetation greening, Li et al., Nature Communications Open Access 10.1038/s41467-024-55175-0
Irreversible changes in the sea surface temperature threshold for tropical convection to CO2 forcing, Park et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access 10.1038/s43247-024-01751-7
Novel dynamical indices for the variations of the South Asia high in a warming climate, Ma et al., Atmospheric Research 10.1016/j.atmosres.2024.107901
Reductions in atmospheric levels of non-CO2 greenhouse gases explain about a quarter of the 1998-2012 warming slowdown, Su et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access 10.1038/s43247-024-01723-x
Tropical High Cloud Feedback Relationships to Climate Sensitivity, Dawson & Schiro, Journal of Climate 10.1175/jcli-d-24-0218.1
Observations of climate change, effects
20th century climate warming and human disturbance triggered high aquatic production and strong water-column mixing in maar Lake Xiaolongwan, northeastern China, Tu et al., Anthropocene 10.1016/j.ancene.2024.100442
Characteristics of Marine Heat Extreme Evolution in the Northern Indian Ocean, Gupta et al., International Journal of Climatology 10.1002/joc.8734
Mediterranean marine heatwaves intensify in the presence of concurrent atmospheric heatwaves, Pastor et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access 10.1038/s43247-024-01982-8
Recent ice melt above a mantle plume track is accelerating the uplift of Southeast Greenland, Weerdesteijn & Conrad Conrad, Communications Earth & Environment Open Access 10.1038/s43247-024-01968-6
Weakening of subsurface ocean temperature seasonality over the past four decades, Liu et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access 10.1038/s43247-024-01986-4
Instrumentation & observational methods of climate change, effects Modeling, simulation & projection of climate change, effects
A Climate Simulation Dataset From 11 Overriding Experiments for Analysing Cloud and Air–Sea Feedbacks, Guo et al., Geoscience Data Journal Open Access 10.1002/gdj3.286
An intensification of surface Earth’s energy imbalance since the late 20th century, Li et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access 10.1038/s43247-024-01802-z
Cause and Characteristics of Changes in Mesoscale Convective Systems within a Convection-Permitting Regional Climate Model, Wallace et al., Journal of Climate 10.1175/jcli-d-24-0251.1
Global changes in extreme tropical cyclone wave heights under projected future climate conditions, Grossmann-Matheson et al., Scientific Reports Open Access 10.1038/s41598-024-82892-9
Intensification of future subsurface marine heatwaves in an eddy-resolving model, Guo et al., Nature Communications Open Access 10.1038/s41467-024-54946-z
More than three-fold increase in compound soil and air dryness across Europe by the end of 21st century, Shekhar et al., Open Access 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3143908/v2
Multi-Model Projection of Climate Extremes under 1.5°C–4°C Global Warming Levels across Iran, Najafi et al., International Journal of Climatology Open Access 10.1002/joc.8740
Widening of Wind Stress Anomalies Amplifies ENSO in a Warming Climate, Stuivenvolt-Allen et al., Journal of Climate Open Access pdf 10.1175/jcli-d-24-0126.1
Advancement of climate & climate effects modeling, simulation & projection
A Performance Evaluation of CMIP6 Wind Fields for Robust Forcing in Indian Ocean Wave Climate Studies, Sreejith et al., International Journal of Climatology 10.1002/joc.8744
An improved and extended parameterization of the CO2 15 µm cooling in the middle and upper atmosphere (CO2&cool&fort-1.0), López-Puertas et al., Geoscientific Model Development Open Access 10.5194/gmd-17-4401-2024
Evaluating CMIP6 Global Climate Models Performances Over Nigeria: An Integrated Approach, Shiru et al., International Journal of Climatology 10.1002/joc.8739
Insights into Cloud Albedo Biases from a Cloud-Controlling Factor Framework, Blanco et al., Journal of Climate 10.1175/jcli-d-24-0260.1
Lightweight climate models could be useful for assessing aviation mitigation strategies and moving beyond the CO2-equivalence metrics debate, Arriolabengoa et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access 10.1038/s43247-024-01888-5
Cryosphere & climate change
Elevation-dependent shift of landslide activity in mountain permafrost regions of the Qilian Mountains, Chen et al., Advances in Climate Change Research Open Access 10.1016/j.accre.2024.11.003
Impacts of Antarctic Sea Ice Change on Global Warming Pattern Inferred From CMIP6 Intermodel Spread, Luo et al., Geophysical Research Letters Open Access 10.1029/2024gl112323
Sea level & climate change
Global mean sea level likely higher than present during the holocene, Creel et al., Nature Communications Open Access 10.1038/s41467-024-54535-0
Paleoclimate & paleogeochemistry
Nanoparticles of iridium and other platinum group elements identified in Chicxulub asteroid impact spherules – Implications for impact winter and profound climate change, Vajda et al., Global and Planetary Change Open Access 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2024.104659
Response of atmospheric CO2 changes to the Abyssal Pacific overturning during the last glacial cycle, Zhang et al., Global and Planetary Change 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2024.104636
Biology & climate change, related geochemistry
Assessing the impact of extreme climate events on European gross primary production, Zhang et al., Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Open Access 10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110374
Diversity and future perspectives of Mediterranean deep-water oyster reefs, Castellan et al., Scientific Reports Open Access 10.1038/s41598-024-77641-x
Even protected seaweeds must face a warming ocean: Sea surface temperatures trigger tissue bleaching and breakdown in the unique giant Irish moss (Chondrus crispus), Gibbons et al., Marine Environmental Research 10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106907
High- and low-temperature stress responses of Porites lutea from the relatively high-latitude region of the South China Sea, Huang et al., Marine Environmental Research 10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106858
Long-term warming and acidification interaction drives plastic acclimation in the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia multiseries, Sun et al., Marine Environmental Research 10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106901
Major distribution shifts are projected for key rangeland grasses under a high-emission scenario in East Africa at the end of the 21st century, Messmer et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access 10.1038/s43247-024-01731-x
Mortality Patterns and Recovery Challenges in Millepora alcicornis after mass bleaching event on Northeast Brazilian Reefs, Vidal et al., Marine Environmental Research 10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106864
Multi-scenario assessment of landscape ecological risk in the transitional zone between the warm temperate zone and the northern subtropical zone, Li et al., Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution Open Access 10.3389/fevo.2024.1471164
Performance of Acanthina monodon juveniles under long-term exposure to predicted climate change conditions, Paredes-Molina et al., Marine Environmental Research 10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106855
Predicting the Effects of Climate Change on the Fertility of Aquatic Animals Using a Meta-Analytic Approach, Chatten et al., Ecology Letters Open Access 10.1111/ele.70054
Recurrent marine heatwaves compromise the reproduction success and long-term viability of shallow populations of the Mediterranean gorgonian Eunicella singularis, Sarda et al., Marine Environmental Research Open Access 10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106822
The trade-offs associated with the adaptions of marine microalgae to high CO2 and warming, Liang et al., Marine Environmental Research 10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106853
Trait-Based Indicators of Marine Communities' Sensitivity to Climate Change and Fishing, Polo et al., Diversity and Distributions 10.1111/ddi.13959
GHG sources & sinks, flux, related geochemistry
Adding labile carbon to peatland soils triggers deep carbon breakdown, Rajakaruna et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access 10.1038/s43247-024-01954-y
An upscaling of methane emissions from Swedish flooded land, Peacock et al., Carbon Management Open Access 10.1080/17583004.2024.2445254
Annual grass invasions and wildfire deplete ecosystem carbon storage by >50% to resistant base levels, Maxwell et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access pdf 10.1038/s43247-024-01795-9
Comparison of Global Aboveground Biomass Estimates From Satellite Observations and Dynamic Global Vegetation Models, El Masri & Xiao, Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 10.1029/2024jg008305
Environmental Conditions Modulate Warming Effects on Plant Litter Decomposition Globally, Schwieger et al., Ecology Letters Open Access pdf 10.1111/ele.70026
GHG emissions intensity analysis. Case study: Bioethanol plant with cogeneration and partial CO2 recovery, Galván et al., Energy for Sustainable Development 10.1016/j.esd.2024.101598
Interactive effects of management and temperature anomalies on CO2 fluxes recorded over 18 years in a temperate upland grassland system, Winck et al., Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Open Access 10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110343
Nitrogen Deposition Weakens Soil Carbon Control of Nitrogen Dynamics Across the Contiguous United States, Nieland et al., Global Change Biology 10.1111/gcb.70016
Predicting CO2 and CH4 fluxes and their seasonal variations in a subarctic wetland under two shared socioeconomic pathway climate scenarios, Zhao et al., Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Open Access 10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110359
Recent methane surges reveal heightened emissions from tropical inundated areas, Lin et al., Nature Communications Open Access 10.1038/s41467-024-55266-y
Sea Ice Modulates Air–Sea Methane Flux in the Southern Ocean, Zhang et al., Geophysical Research Letters Open Access 10.1029/2024gl112073
Seasonal CO2 amplitude in northern high latitudes, Liu et al., Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 10.1038/s43017-024-00600-7
Spatial and temporal variations of gross primary production simulated by land surface model BCC&AVIM2.0, Li et al., Advances in Climate Change Research Open Access 10.1016/j.accre.2023.02.001
Study of atmospheric CH4, CO2 and N2O at Waliguan WMO/GAW global station: Time series trend, seasonal variation, and attribution analysis association with meteorological factors, Wei et al., Atmospheric Environment 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120994
The presence of the Tibetan Plateau lowers atmospheric CO2 levels via the Atlantic-Pacific carbon seesaw, Du et al., Global and Planetary Change 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2024.104681
CO2 capture, sequestration science & engineering
Advancing the frontiers of CO2 geological storage: A statistical and computational perspective, Li et al., Earth 10.1016/j.earscirev.2024.104906
Decarbonization
Scaling solar photovoltaics into the grid: Challenges and opportunities in Germany, Gómez-Calvet & Gómez-Calvet, Energy Research & Social Science 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103882
Geoengineering climate
Impacts of Solar Geoengineering on Projected Climate of South Asia, Hussain et al., International Journal of Climatology Open Access 10.1002/joc.8695
Question-Led Innovation: Public priorities for enhanced weathering research in Malaysia, Cox et al., Environmental Science & Policy Open Access 10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103977
Agronomy, animal husbundry, food production & climate change
Agroforestry as Climate Change Adaptation: The Case of Cocoa Farming in Ghana, Sapril, Environmental Communication 10.1080/17524032.2024.2445545
Forest fertilization transiently increases soil CO2 efflux in young Norway spruce stands in Sweden, Håkansson et al., Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Open Access 10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110287
Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Agriculture: Pathways to Sustainable Reductions, Li et al., Global Change Biology Open Access 10.1111/gcb.70015
Lower methane and nitrous oxide emissions from rice-aquaculture co-culture systems than from rice paddies in southeast China,, Fang et al., Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 10.1016/j.agrformet.2023.109540
Modeling biochar effects on soil organic carbon on croplands in a microbial decomposition model (MIMICS-BC&v1.0), Han et al., Geoscientific Model Development Open Access 10.5194/gmd-17-4871-2024
Projecting impacts of extreme weather events on crop yields using LASSO regression, Heilemann et al., Weather and Climate Extremes Open Access 10.1016/j.wace.2024.100738
Rethinking Crop Rotational Benefits Under Climate Change: Beyond the Growing Season, Smith et al., Global Change Biology Open Access 10.1111/gcb.70012
Seasonal patterns of CO2 exchange in a tropical intensively managed pasture in Southeastern Brazil, Bianchini et al., Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110324
The biophysical effects of phenological shifts impact land surface temperature for corn expansion in Northeastern China, Ma et al., Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110373
The vulnerability of winter wheat in Germany to air temperature, precipitation or compound extremes is shaped by soil-climate zones, Becker et al., Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Open Access 10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110322
Wetter, but not wet enough—Limited greenhouse gas mitigation effects of subsurface irrigation and blocked ditches in an intensively cultivated grassland on fen peat, Heller et al., Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Open Access 10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110367
Hydrology, hydrometeorology & climate change
Assessment of Droughts and Floods During the Indian Summer Monsoon Using the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 Historical and Future Simulations, George et al., International Journal of Climatology 10.1002/joc.8729
Historical and future projections of southwest monsoon rainfall extremes: a comprehensive study using CMIP6 simulations, Varikoden et al., Atmospheric Research 10.1016/j.atmosres.2024.107870
Interdecadal shifts and associated atmospheric circulation anomalies of heavy precipitation during the warm-season in the Upper Yellow River Basin over the past 40 years, Ye et al., Atmospheric Research Open Access 10.1016/j.atmosres.2024.107801
Projected Changes in Precipitation Extremes Across the Mississippi River Basin Using the NASA Global Daily Downscaled Datasets NEX-GDDP-CMIP6, Talchabhadel et al., International Journal of Climatology 10.1002/joc.8748
Climate change economics
Climate finance and new multilateral development banks: approaching co-productive dynamics?, Zeng, Climate Policy Open Access 10.1080/14693062.2024.2442004
Perceived climate risk and stock prices: An empirical analysis of pricing effects, Ben Ameur et al., Risk Analysis 10.1111/risa.17683
Climate change mitigation public policy research
Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial processes and product use are a non-ignorable factor in China’ s mitigation, Hu et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access 10.1038/s43247-024-01951-1
Carbon literacy, switching cost, and consumer choice: Evidence from the new energy vehicle purchase analysis, Liu & Yang Yang, Energy Policy 10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114478
City climate action plans through the lens of the food-energy-water nexus, Mounir & Chini, Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability Open Access 10.1088/2634-4505/ada0d9
Embracing sufficiency to accelerate the energy transition, Dablander et al., Energy Research & Social Science Open Access 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103907
Who gets to imagine a fossil-free future? Ontological politics of knowledge-action co-production in the Swedish just transition, Sokolova, Environmental Politics Open Access 10.1080/09644016.2024.2443884
“Here comes the sun”: Determinants of solar farm planning at local authority level in England, Hussain et al., Energy Research & Social Science Open Access 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103916
Climate change adaptation & adaptation public policy research
Addressing social equity in coastal climate adaptation planning: A case study of Norfolk, Virginia, Michel et al., PLOS Climate Open Access 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000516
Stabilising CO2 concentration as a channel for global disaster risk mitigation, Lu & Tambakis, Scientific Reports Open Access pdf 10.1038/s41598-024-79437-5
The Complex Task of Evaluating the Institutional Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change at Local Government Level: A Study of the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, Gadu et al., Climate Resilience and Sustainability Open Access 10.1002/cli2.70003
“Are you prepared or not?”: An intersectional analysis of a community-engaged climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning process with Tsáá? Ché Ne Dane, Avitzur, Neurology Now Open Access 10.1097/01.nnn.0000424230.43366.7b
Climate change impacts on human health
Calibrating the UTCI scale for hot and humid climates through comprehensive year-round field surveys to improve the adaptability, Chen et al., Urban Climate 10.1016/j.uclim.2024.102267
Changes in human-perceived temperature extremes and associated population exposure across China, Chen et al., Atmospheric Research 10.1016/j.atmosres.2024.107896
Climate change & geopolitics
Geopolitics of renewable energy development: The role of energy metals, Lin & Zhang, Energy Policy 10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114482
Other
A mid-20th century stratigraphical Anthropocene is recognisable in the birth-area of the industrial revolution, Sellers et al., The Anthropocene Review 10.1177/20530196241306407
Informed opinion, nudges & major initiatives
Why Misinformation Must Not Be Ignored, Ecker et al., American Psychologist Open Access 10.1037/amp0001448
Articles/Reports from Agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations Addressing Aspects of Climate Change
Unheeded Warnings: Forest Biomass Threats to Tropical Forests in Indonesia and Southeast Asia, Earth Insight, Auriga Nusantara, Forest Watch Indonesia, Solutions for Our Climate, Trend Asia, and Mighty Earth
Burning wood in biomass power or co-fired in coal power plants could bring Indonesia’s forests to an irrever\nwind into biomass energy threaten forests and biodiversity across Southeast Asia. Threats to Indonesia’s forests from co-firing coal plants include energy plantation forest concessions, and, wood chip and pellet mill haul zones. The country’s forests also face unprecedented threats from the industrial scale projected for biomass demand. Burning wood for energy in Indonesia, Japan, and South Korea is a threat to bio-diverse tropical forests across Southeast Asia.
A Climate of Opportunity. ESG in a Second Trump Administration, Veerless
Voters in 19 states, including conservative regions like Louisiana and Montana, advanced ESG initiatives on environmental protections, anti-discrimination policies, and marriage equality. Despite pushback against “woke culture,” state elections confirmed that ESG values resonate with a broad spectrum of Americans. The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) raises the bar for transparency, requiring emissions data, sustainability plans, and measurable ESG progress. By 2025, CS3D and the EU Taxonomy will align with CSRD, leaving non-compliant companies facing fines, market restrictions, and reputational damage. Gen Z and Millennials are driving corporate sustainability, with over 90% of Gen Z and 60% of Millennials choosing or paying more for sustainable products. Even among conservatives, 60% of Trump voters under 30 express concern about climate change in their communities, highlighting a generational shift that companies can’t ignore.
Civic Activism in an Intensifying Climate Crisis, Erin Jones and Richard Youngs, editors, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
It would be impossible to understand the trajectory of two of the defining issues of the past half-century—the global struggles for democracy and economic justice—without a close examination of the role of civic activism. Civic activism is also critical to a third defining issue of our time, one that is unfolding inexorably day by day, month by month, and year by year—the climate crisis. This innovative, wide-reaching compilation takes stock of the present and near-term future state of climate activism. It ranges beyond the European and North American contexts to look at Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and other regions, alternating between regional and thematic perspectives and narrower, snapshot case studies. It considers tactics and methods, with consideration of problems as well as progress. The compilation threads a useful path between unrealistic optimism and unnecessary pessimism, conveying to the reader a sense of what it will take for climate activism to meet this critical moment, leaving open the question of whether it is likely to do so.
The Risks of Climate Change to the United States in the 21st Century, Nielsen et al., Congressional Budget Office
The economic effects of climate change will depend on the extent of its physical effects. Those effects are highly uncertain. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2100, there is a 5 percent chance that average global temperatures will be more than 4 degrees Celsius (4°C) warmer than they were in the latter half of the 19th century and an equal chance that they will have risen by less than 2°C. In the United States, sea levels have a 5 percent chance of rising by about 4 feet or more by 2100 and an equal chance of rising by about 2 feet or less. Damage from natural disasters is also expected to increase. The uncertainty of climate change’s physical effects implies a wide range of possible economic consequences, ranging from benign to catastrophic. In this report, CBO focuses, where possible, on the 5th and 95th percentiles of the distributions of potential outcomes. The authors examine the possible economic effects of climate change on gross domestic product (GDP), real estate markets, and other areas that influence the economy and the federal budget.
Climate Change: Improved Data and Performance Management Would Strengthen U.S. Support to the Indo-Pacific, Love-Grayer et al., Government Accountability Organization
Countries and U.S. territories in the Indo-Pacific region are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise, coral reef bleaching, and drought. GAO was asked to review federal agencies' assistance to address climate risks to countries and U.S. territories in the region. Also, the Inflation Reduction Act asked GAO to oversee the use of these funds. The authors examine (1) the assistance federal agencies have provided to selected countries and U.S. territories in the Indo-Pacific; (2) the extent to which selected agencies have practices to monitor the performance of such assistance in selected locations; and (3) any challenges affecting the provision and use of such assistance and agency efforts to address them. The authors analyzed funding data and documentation of agency activities and monitoring mechanisms; interviewed agency, territorial, foreign government, and activity officials; and conducted site visits to Palau, Papua New Guinea, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. GAO also interviewed officials in Bangladesh and Fiji.
Building Resilient Cities: Adapting to the Health Impacts of Climate Change, Mathur et al., Observer Research Foundation
Urban populations and city dwellers, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, are especially susceptible to the health impacts of climate change. Urban areas, with their dense populations, are more affected by extreme weather events and often have large populations living in insecure informal settlements where access to basic necessities like water, sanitation, and healthcare is limited. Even in high-income countries, cities face multiple non-climate-related stresses, such as aging infrastructure, poor land use planning, and political challenges. The way cities are constructed—reducing vegetation, covering large areas with impermeable surfaces, and obstructing natural drainage—exacerbates the vulnerability of urban populations to climate change, making them more prone to heat waves, heavy precipitation, and other extreme weather events. There is an urgent need for better urban-focused research and the implementation of strategies to address these vulnerabilities, particularly as urban populations continue to grow. Without such actions, the health impacts of climate change in cities are likely to become even more severe. In three sections comprising nine essays, this volume attempts to examine and address these issues.
Financing Climate Adaptation in Africa, Iva Detelinova, Observer Research Foundation
The African continent faces escalating climate threats, with rising temperatures, sea-level rise, water stress, and extreme weather events causing widespread negative consequences. The author argues for the need to build a business case for greater adaptation investment in Africa. Climate change is already causing significant economic losses, with African countries losing 2-5 percent of GDP annually, while adaptation investments could yield returns of US$2-10 for every dollar spent. The author examines emerging opportunities in adaptation finance, driven by changing consumer preferences and growing demand for climate-resilient products. Combining domestic resources with innovative financial mechanisms and growing climate awareness could help African countries transition towards more climate-resilient economies.
Energy justice through policy: A comparison of US and EU approaches, Cordelia Buchanan Ponczek and Marco Siddi, The Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Policymakers have come to consensus on the need to prioritize the low-carbon energy transition. But this comes with costs and questions of fairness. Therefore, policymakers also see transition initiatives as an opportunity to ensure more just outcomes. This has been dubbed the “just energy transition”. But what does a just energy transition mean in practice? How do policymakers bridge the gap between assessed needs – injustices – and policies that correspond to those needs? The authors evaluate and compare EU and US policies aimed at the energy transition and energy justice. It considers the extent to which the European Green Deal (EGD) and the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) attempt to enshrine “energy justice”, as well as the various understandings of the term from the distribution, recognition, and procedure points. The authors show that the EGD is more specific in terms of procedural justice, whereas the IRA includes more explicit clauses related to recognition-based justice. Both highlight elements of distributional justice.
Navigating Clean Energy Industries and Rivalry in Decarbonisation, Dan Marks and James Henderson, The Royal United Services Institute
In this research paper, the authors address a series of questions, including how to ensure the security of production networks while simultaneously decarbonising rapidly and affordably, promoting innovation and maximising local economic benefits. They argue against protectionism and 'friend-shoring' in favour of policies which emphasise the importance of relatively open commodity and capital markets, fair competition, and diversification. The authors conclude that the answer to China’s current overwhelming scale is likely to be increased trade and investment in the most competitive locations for different stages of production, and that environmental and social regulations should be welcomed, but should not serve to exclude challenging jurisdictions from the supply chain by being overly prescriptive or introducing prohibitive costs on suppliers.
Banking on Climate: Mortgage Lending for Decarbonization, New York City Economic Development Corporation, NYU Stern’s Center for Sustainable Business, and the Chao-Hon Chen Institute for Global Real Estate
The authors summarize their research and synthesize recommendations and feedback from participants in the Building Decarbonization Finance Task Force—a group of mortgage lenders, building owners, policymakers, and nonprofits convened from January to June 2024 to discuss opportunities and challenges that the US mortgage industry faces as a result of efforts to decarbonize the built environment.
When Risks Become Reality: Extreme Weather In 2024, Otto et al., World Weather Attribution
Every December, we’re asked if it was a bad year for extreme weather. The answer is increasingly clear: yes. The authors look back at 2024, highlighting the devastating consequences of climate change and exposing our collective unpreparedness again and again in the 29 extremes that were studied in depth. Heatwaves continue to claim lives, floods devastate communities, and droughts obliterate crops and livelihoods. Although El Niño made some extreme weather events more likely, its influence on extreme weather was often over-emphasised.
3 Degrees More. The Impending Hot Season and How Nature Can Help Us Prevent It, Editor, Klaus Wiegandt, Springer Nature Switzerland AG
This open-access book describes in detail what life on this planet would be like if its average surface temperature were to rise 3 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial level. On this basis, the book argues that it is imperative to keep this temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. It then lays out a detailed plan of what politically feasible, cost-effective measures should now be taken to achieve this goal. In this context, the book provides detailed discussions of climate finance, climate education, and nature-based solutions. The book has been translated into English from the original German version published in 2022 and contains an original foreword and preface.
BRASIL EM TRANSFORMAÇÃO: 2024: O ANO MAIS QUENTE DA HISTÓRIA O IMPACTO DA CRISE CLIMÁTICA (Brazil in Transformation: 2024: The Hottest Year in History. The Impact of the Climate Crisis), Aline Sbizera Martinez and Ronaldo Adriano Christofoletti, Alianca Brasileira Pela Cultura Oceanica (Brazilian Alliance for Oceanic Culture)
O ano de 2024 está consolidado como o mais quente da história desde o período pré-industrial (1850-1900). Pela primeira vez, a média global da temperatura do ar excedeu 1,5 °C acima desse marco histórico durante 12 meses consecutivos. Este limite, considerado crítico pelo Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas (IPCC), estava previsto para ser atingido apenas no final desta década, mas foi antecipado pelos rápidos \nThe year 2024 is set to be the hottest in history since the pre-industrial period (1850-1900). For the first time, the global average air temperature exceeded 1.5 °C above this historical milestone for 12 consecutive months. This threshold, considered critical by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was expected to be reached only at the end of this decade but was brought forward by the rapid impacts of the climate crisis.
Counting the Cost 2024. A year of climate breakdown, Joe Ware and Oliver Pearce, Christian Aid
This year's Counting the Cost report reveals the shocking cost of the world's worst claimed disasters. These climate disasters serve as a stark warning of what lies ahead if we fail to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. They also highlight the critical need for adaptation measures, particularly in the Global South, where resources are limited, and communities face heightened vulnerability to extreme weather events. The analysis list features disasters featured in the news from all over the world – from U.S. storms like Hurricane Milton and Helene, to the China, Bavaria, and Valencia floods.
Obtaining articles without journal subscriptions
We know it's frustrating that many articles we cite here are not free to read. One-off paid access fees are generally astronomically priced, suitable for such as "On a Heuristic Point of View Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light" but not as a gamble on unknowns. With a median world income of US$ 9,373, for most of us US$ 42 is significant money to wager on an article's relevance and importance.
- Here's an excellent collection of tips and techniques for obtaining articles, legally.
- Unpaywall offers a browser extension for Chrome and Firefox that automatically indicates when an article is freely accessible and provides immediate access without further trouble. Unpaywall is also unscammy, works well, is itself offered free to use. The organizers (a legitimate nonprofit) report about a 50% success rate
- The weekly New Research catch is checked against the Unpaywall database with accessible items being flagged. Especially for just-published articles this mechansim may fail. If you're interested in an article title and it is not listed here as "open access," be sure to check the link anyway.
How is New Research assembled?
Most articles appearing here are found via RSS feeds from journal publishers, filtered by search terms to produce raw output for assessment of relevance.
Relevant articles are then queried against the Unpaywall database, to identify open access articles and expose useful metadata for articles appearing in the database.
The objective of New Research isn't to cast a tinge on scientific results, to color readers' impressions. Hence candidate articles are assessed via two metrics only:
- Was an article deemed of sufficient merit by a team of journal editors and peer reviewers? The fact of journal RSS output assigns a "yes" to this automatically.
- Is an article relevant to the topic of anthropogenic climate change? Due to filter overlap with other publication topics of inquiry, of a typical week's 550 or so input articles about 1/4 of RSS output makes the cut.
A few journals offer public access to "preprint" versions of articles for which the review process is not yet complete. For some key journals this all the mention we'll see in RSS feeds, so we include such items in New Research. These are flagged as "preprint."
The section "Informed opinion, nudges & major initiatives" includes some items that are not scientific research per se but fall instead into the category of "perspectives," observations of implications of research findings, areas needing attention, etc.
Suggestions
Please let us know if you're aware of an article you think may be of interest for Skeptical Science research news, or if we've missed something that may be important. Send your input to Skeptical Science via our contact form.
Journals covered
A list of journals we cover may be found here. We welcome pointers to omissions, new journals etc.
Previous edition
The previous edition of Skeptical Science New Research may be found here.
Thank you for continuing to compile and share this weekly summary of new research.
The first Open Notable, Why Misinformation Must Not Be Ignored, Ecker et al., American Psychologist:, is an informative presentation that should not have needed to be made.
It can be summarized by saying that: Many of the attempts to argue that misinformation can be ignored rely on the ability to successfully produce misunderstandings through the presentation of misinformation.
It is hard to deny that misunderstandings due to misleading presentations of misinformation lead to ‘avoidable conflicts of interest and can produce harmful results’.
The following quote from the article, from the section addressing ‘Argument 2: Misinformation Has No Significant Causal Impacts’, says it very well:
“The position that misinformation has no meaningful causal effects imagines that substantial segments of a population could form a false belief, such as the conviction that vaccines cause autism, either without being exposed specifically to the corresponding false claim or despite the exposure having no discernible consequence (Poland & Spier, 2010). On this view, the violent insurrection on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and the partisan gap in COVID-19 vaccination rates between Republicans and Democrats—which is now associated with a widening gap in mortality rates (Wallace et al., 2022)—were unrelated to misinformation about a “stolen” election or the safety of vaccines (see Bolsen & Palm, 2022; M. H. Graham & Yair, 2024; Henricksen & Betz, 2022; Lee et al., 2022; Riley, 2022). This seems implausible (e.g., court documents suggested that the views of many of those arrested after the insurrection were shaped by election-fraud misinformation; McCarthy, 2021). To provide additional examples, the view further implies that multiple lynchings of alleged child abductors in India in 2018 were not causally related to the false abduction rumors spreading on WhatsApp locally at the time (Gupta & Wilkinson, 2018) or that the 2024 anti-immigration riots in the United Kingdom that mainly targeted Muslims were unrelated to the misinformation about the religion of the alleged perpetrator of the Southport child murders (Holden & Smout, 2024). A strict interpretation of the “no causal impact” argument would even suggest that a counterfactual world with no misinformation would look just the same as the world we find ourselves in, and the argument also implies that information consumption or exposure in general has no causal impacts. This is not a credible position.”
One planet - I agree that misinformation is a problem. However, calls to stop misinformation are essentially calls for censorship.
A classic example is the Wallace et al study 2022 you cited which showed republican excess death rates were higher than democrat excess death rates. Republicans and Democrats—which is now associated with a widening gap in mortality rates (Wallace et al., 2022)—
Fortunately, the study provided the raw data in eTable 1. Summary Statistics. The raw data devastates the study's conclusion. Did peer review even attempt to cross check the computation, or even do a simple math test?
Per capita death rates for Democrats exceeded per capita death rates for republics in all categories in both states except for the 85+ age group in Ohio and Texas. How they could have possibly concluded republican excess death rates were higher than democrat excess deaths when the raw data shows otherwise.
FWIW - I have seen this study posted several times on other websites, yet the advocates posting this study never seem to perform any level of due diligence and simply accept the findings because it fits their biased views. It simply is another example of misinformation.
David-acct:
Ah,yes, the cry of "censorship!". You beat that drum a lot. It was your opening statement when you commented a month ago, on the "Interview with John Cook about misinformation..." post. In that case, it was pointed out to you that the video said nothing at all about suppressing misinformation - just countering it. You doubled-down on your misrepresentation of that video. Whenever you open a comment with that cry, it only serves to reduce your credibility even further.
I notice that you have not actually provided a link to the Wallace et al (2022) paper you are referring to. It is also not linked to in the quote that OPOF has included. Note that OPOF is quoting information from the first link in the OP. OPOF is not the one citing the Wallace paper - it is a cite in Ecker et al. For you to characterize it as OPOF's cite is misinformation.
When I follow the cite in Ecker, I find the Wallace paper here. I do not see anything labelled "eTable 1". Searching the PDF, the word "table" doesn't even appear in the paper. There are several links to various data sources in their "Supplemental description of methods and data", but I can only hazard a guess as to whether this is the paper you are talking about, and what data table you think tells us what you say it does.
When you say "...the raw data shows otherwise", you provide no data and no analysis of what you see in the "raw data". Data does not show anything. Data needs to be analyzed and interpreted. This is certainly true in science, and I suspect that even in accounting the "raw" data doesn't "show" anything until after someone looks at it and draws an interpretation from it.
After all, the raw data for the entire US population shows that the average American has one testicle and one breast. Do you think that this would be a reasonable interpretation?
FYI, in the abstract of Wallace et al, we get to see some of the interpretation that they applied to the "raw data" - interpretation that helps examine the question they have and avoid contamination from confounding variables:
I also note that in their Results section, they talk about "relative excess deaths". This would be a type of analysis that would take raw death rates and try to account for other variables besides Covid. They say:
So, you are (as you often do) just putting your own spin on something, and attempting to assert a conclusion without providing a justification. It is quite possible that your interpretation of the "raw data" is using a biased pooling of the data that hides the relationship you don't want to see.
Have you done your own "due diligence" to analyze and interpret the "raw" data? Have you simply accepted the "findings" you read on some other web site about Wallace et al? Are you accepting some other person's opinion about Wallace et al because it fits your biased views?
Are you spreading misinformation?
As I stated - The raw data does not support the conclusion of the study.
Both sides present misinformation. You cant call for stopping the othersides misinformation when both sides are guilty.
the raw data is in table eTable 1.
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617
My second point is that you are accusing me of misrepresenting the data when you have not performed any level of due diligence on the raw data. The raw data clearly shows the per capita death rates for all age groups to be higher for democrats than republicans with the exception of the 85+ age group.
Before you critisize my analysis, point to the specific math errror I made. You will be surprised how often I am correct when you perform a basic level of due diligence.
Oh, my. More assertions from David-acct.
First of all, let's look at "due diligence".
The "raw data" in eTable 1 does not show what you think it shows. It shows that more Democrats died in the 25-84 age classes from all causes. It does not provide a breakdown by time period (essential for evaluating the effects of different vaccine availability), and does not even mention the time period that the data covers (whereas other data in the paper tells us that they have broken the data down into different time periods).
You close with "You will be surprised how often I am correct when you perform a basic level of due diligence. "
Frankly, the level of "due diligence" that you have illustrated in your work is pretty poor. In comment 3, I closed by asking questions whether you were spreading misinformation. Now that I have further details on your level of "due diligence" and can see the data you are claiming supports your position, I can see that what you have said here does indeed represent misinformation.
...and yes - based on your history here - I would be very, very surprised to discover that you are "often correct". Nearly every time you comment, there are details you have left out that discredit your opinion.
I looked at etable 1 yesterday, and I noticed it wasn't broken up into the relevant time periods and I wasnt sure what exactly it was measuring, covid deaths or everything, so you have to be cautious jumping to conclusions about that table and its raw data. But I got a bit lost trying to anaylse the next table, so I gave up. Well done Bob for analysing the thing in such detail.
The climate denialists always look at the raw data and think they have found some sort of smoking gun that discredits what scientists are saying. But raw data mostly cant be taken at face value and has to be analysed.
And its very unlikely that the people doing the covid study would have made such a massive and basic maths mistake with numbers of democrat deaths v republicans, and this also not picked up in peer review. This tells me the raw data probably cant be taken at face value.
Really if David-acct disagrees with the findings of the covid study, he has to show a flaw in the analysis of the raw data. Such a thing requires a lot of expertise in statistics he might not have, and neither do I. At some point you have to trust the experts and the process.
David_acct,
Thank you for (perhaps unwittingly) providing an example of an attempt “...to successfully produce misunderstandings through the presentation of misinformation...” that I referred to in my comment @1.
The real thank you goes to Bob Loblaw for diligently putting the effort in to justifiably criticize/expose the misunderstanding/misinformation you presented in the attempt to claim that there is 'an equivalent amount or degreee of misinformation presentation on both sides (of every issue)'.
I would supplement Bob’s detailed evaluations by simply stating that:
It is clearly misleading to claim that ‘an accurate interpretation of the per-capita death rates’ supports the conclusion that ‘the reported conclusions based on the evaluation of rates of excess deaths is incorrect and misleading’.
There is a significant amount of evidence clearly indicating that 'people who have developed interests opposed to, or resistant to, learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others' are more likely to try “...to successfully produce misunderstandings through the presentation of misinformation...".
Building on nigelj’s input @6 that “...climate denialists always look at the raw data and think they have found some sort of smoking gun that discredits what scientists are saying.”, other examples of this type of ‘misleading/misinformation claim making-up’ based on selective ‘accurate interpretations of information’ include:
OPOF and nigelj:
Yes, the example provided by David-acct is an odd one. In comment 4, he says "Before you critisize my analysis, point to the specific math error I made.".
Yet, he has not actually provided any analysis or math - he has simply said that the data shows what he says it shows. His purely descriptive analysis is (from comment 2, but said much the same way in comment 4):
eTable 1 actually has several sections in it.
Nowhere in eTable 1 is there any mention at all of "per capita death rates".
I am beginning to wonder if David-acct has actually read the paper and looked at the table. His posting here resembles a common contrarian habit of reading an analysis somewhere else, accepting it because it tells the story they like, and not bothering to read the actual paper to see if it says what the contrarians' secondary source has claimed.
The "look at the raw data" ploy is often seen as part of the contrarian "they fudged the results" myth.
One further bit of "due diligence" (for now).
David-acct said in comment 2 (emphasis added),
He cited eTable 1 in Wallace et al (2023).
I am not a geographer (oh, wait, actually I am...), but I don't think that Florida and Texas are the same state. Mark one for attention to detail.
...and it looks like the per capita death rate for Republicans aged 25-64 is a smidge higher than for Democrats. Of course, if you round it off to one significant figure 0.009532 and 0.009704 both round to 0.01 (1%). David-acct (or the secondary sources he is using) may want to try argue that the difference is not significant, but it is misinformation to claim that the Democrats number exceeded the Republicans number for that age category in Florida.
David-acct:
You have never responded to my analysis of raw data you provided that you claimed showed nuclear reactors in France did not shut down on the weekends. I asked these questions:
"Several question about this raw data occured to me.
1) You state clearly that the data shows no nuclear power stations were shut down. Please explain why the power generated on the weekend is so much less than the power generated on Thursday. How does this show that no power stations were shut down over the weekend? It appears to me that about 6 of 31 power stations (20%) were turned off.
2) On both days they are generating more power at night when power is generated at a loss than they are generating during the day when the price of electricity is much higher. Can you explain why the "always on" nuclear plants generate less power during the most expensive part of the day than they do when electricity is cheapest?
This example proves beyond doubt that examining cherry picked factoids without any analysis is a complete waste of time. Please do not cite raw data any more. You need to cite analysis of data that filter out gross errors"
In a scientific discussion you do not get to abandon the discussion when it is proven that your claims were simply uninformed BS. Please respond with your answers to my questions about your raw data.
I note that in the current discussion here you have again been shown to make false claims about " raw data". These examples prove that citing raw data is a complete waste of everyones time.
It appears to me that David-acct cites raw data hoping that no one will check his false claims since it is time consuming to analyze the data. Bob Loblaw had to read the citation and then read the supplementary data to find out that David-acct had made false claims. I also wonder if he is reposting misinformation from other sites.
David-acct often cites misinformation in his posts here at Skeptical Science.
[BL] Link corrected here, too.
Yes, David-acct's habit of abandoning discussion when lengthy counter-arguments are presented is not indicative of a desire for open discussion.
Somehow my link was incorrect.
Here is the original post to David-acct
[BL} Link corrected (from following comment)
Not sure what is happening to your links. Do they look correct when you enter then into the pop-up box during link creation? (Chain link icon on "Insert" tab).
My links are not working today. This is the link
https://skepticalscience.com//news.php?n=5726#141515
[BL} Link linkified...
I am not sure which week-ends are being considered here and I know even less about what the reasons could be for modulating the power generation mix in the way it was. When looking at multi days and weeks through the Eco2mixx tool, it seems the variation in wind availability has a lot to do with how the mix changes. Solar is cyclical in nature, with variations. Wind varies sopmewhat less predictably. Nuclear takes time to ramp up, less time to bring down. I believe that gas can be ramped up and down quicker than nuclear.
whttps://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source#ww.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source#
The Eco2mix tool allows to look at up to 2 weeks of power generation by source. I do not see a consistent pattern of what Michael described on that particular week-end (not sure when that week-end was). Looking at a 2 week period in December 2024, it is apparent that the troughs tend to happen between 2 and 4 am and the spikes tend to be in the middle of the day between 1100 and 1400. Sometimes a secondary bump is seen in the 20 to 2200 period. in general, deep troughs in nuclear generation seem to correspond to night time when the wind share is high.
michael sweet @10,
In addition to making-up misleading claims based on misunderstandings of raw data, David-acct has a history of claiming that efforts to help others learn about harmful misleading claims is a form of ‘censorship’ (Bob Loblaw @3 points this out). They try to redefine ‘censorship’ to include efforts to increase awareness and improve understanding. They also try to claim that efforts to increase awareness and improve understanding are also ‘misleading’ (David-acct @2 ends their misleading attack on “...the Wallace et al study 2022...” by incorrectly claiming that “It simply is another example of misinformation.”).
If misleading claim makers like David-acct fail to succeed in claiming that exposing their misleading promotion of misunderstanding is ‘censorship’ or ‘misinformation’, then they are likely to shift to making-up claims that freedom of speech includes ‘the freedom from having the effectiveness of misleading made-up claims reduced by people learning from logical and evidence-based presentations of information and corrections'.
Tragically, several popular communication platforms are shying away from responsibly justifiably exposing and correcting misleading claims (NPR item “Meta says it will end fact checking as Silicon Valley prepares for Trump” by Huo Jingnan, Shannon Bond, Bobby Allyn)
The likes of Meta and X leadership appear to mistakenly believe that ‘communities driven by emotion-triggering (viral) popularity that can be significantly overwhelmed by harmfully misleading made-up claims’ will be effectively corrected, including having harm done by misleading claims being effectively undone and neutralized, by that same ‘community driven by emotion-triggering (viral) popularity that can be significantly overwhelmed by harmfully misleading made-up claims’. Logically, the evidence indicates that it is more likely that logical evidence-based (boring and long-winded) understandings will be popularly misunderstood to be misleading or deserve to be dismissed.
Regarding Zuckerberg being accused of censorship, and his decision to cancel facebooks fact checking programme. His decision doesnt make any sense. Facebooks doesnt censor content except content that infringes the law, such as inciting violence, or sharing information related to child sexual abuse and virtually nobody is complaining about that. Facebook does moderate hate speech but that is unrelated to the issue of fact checking as such and doesnt appear to be the issue.The "fact checking" consists of attaching warnings and ratings to information and reducing the extent of its spread, by changing how its algorithms work to distribute information. This is not censorship because nothing is prohibited or deleted. Refer:
https://www.facebook.com/formedia/blog/third-party-fact-checking-how-it-works
Some sources claim Zuckerbergs decision not to do fact checking is because he is scared that Trump will attack his company in some way andt costs.
Getting facebook users to fact check articles and rate them in some way could be chaos. They will probably end up with a list of different views and ratings all contradicing each other all written by amateurs and very hard for anyone to read them all or make sense of it.
Zuckerberg is letting himself get pushed around, and it wont stop until his platform removes all ratings even those posted by users, and and removes all criticism of Republicans or their comments, because republicans mistakingly believe criticism is the same as censoring their views.
nigelj @16,
In addition to the concerns you mentioned that could be motivating Meta’s leadership to change how helpful its platforms are at limiting harm done, the NPR Item I linked in my comment @15 includes the following edited string of quotes:
Repeating talking points long used by President-elect Donald Trump and his allies, in a video Zuckerberg said the company's content moderation approach resulted too often in "censorship".
"After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth," Zuckerberg said. "But the fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the U.S."
Meta set up one of the most extensive partnerships with fact checkers after the 2016 presidential election, in which Russia spread false claims on Facebook and other online platforms. The company created what has become a standard for how tech platforms limit the spread of falsehoods and misleading information.
...
In recent years, fact checkers, researchers of false narratives, and social media content moderation programs have become targets of Republican-led Congressional probes and legal challenges.
...
The president-elect and other Republicans have long accused Silicon Valley of harboring anti-conservative bias that has muzzled their speech online. Trump has accused Zuckerberg personally of election interference and threatened him with life in prison.
...
Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College and longtime Meta observer, said it is distressing seeing business leaders "showing performative fealty" to the incoming administration.
"Meta clearly perceives a great deal of political risk of being targeted," Nyhan said in an interview. "And the way Zuckerberg presented the announcements, and the timing, was obviously intended to play to a Republican audience."
Some observers say Meta may be hoping for a lighter touch from regulators in the Trump administration.
...
A sweeping antitrust case against Meta brought by the FTC and attorneys general from 48 states and territories during Trump's first term is set to go to trial in April. In a recent court filing, government lawyers wrote Mark Zuckerberg is expected to be among the first witnesses called to the stand.
...
Research has shown that Republicans circulated more unfounded claims. One study also found that far right content was more engaging on Facebook, and that far-right sources known for spreading misinformation significantly outperformed non-misinformation sources. Data to definitively prove bias on a platform level is not available to researchers.
...
The company's U.S. content moderation team will move from California to Texas. The move should "help us build trust to do this work in places where there is less concern about the bias of our teams," Zuckerberg said.
...
Fact checkers who have worked with Meta for years pushed back against Zuckerberg's accusation of bias.
"It was particularly troubling to see him echo claims of bias against the fact checkers because he knows that the ones that participated in his program were signatories of a code of principles that requires that they be transparent and nonpartisan," said Bill Adair, co-founder of the International Fact Checking Network. He founded PolitiFact, one of the first participants in Facebook's third party fact checker's program, which he left in 2020.
"Meta, up until this morning, has always appreciated the independence of fact checkers," Adair said.
Philippe Changes at 13:
I responded on the nuclear thread here where it is on topic.
In reply to Nigj, One planet and Bob - The topic of this thread is misinformation.
First I will acknowledge a typo in my original comment - The raw data is from Florida and Ohio not Texas and Ohio.
With that correction, This thread has turned out to be a classic example of how easy it is to get fooled by misinformation. Especially when the misinformation fits the person's biases.
Its not difficult to perform a basic level of due diligence from the raw data provided in the supplemental table
per capita death rates from the raw data:
Florida
65-74 age group Dem 4.4453%, Republican 4.1073%
75-84 age group - dem 11.1003% Rep 10.9481%
85+ age group - dem 26.9213% Rep 29.2353%
25-64 age group - dem 0.9532% rep 0.97043%
Ohio
65-74 age group Dem 5.985%, Republican 5.1432%
75-84 age group - dem 15.5005% Rep 14.3840%
85+ age group - dem 39.6232% Rep 40.1578%
25-64 age group - dem 1.2696% rep 1.0879%
In addition to the raw data conflicting with the conclusion, there are other glaring problems that should have been easily recognizable by anyone with basic scientific knowledge.
a) Its well known that computing excess deaths is subject the wide variability based on the methodology used.
b) its well known that using a short base period is problematic, A 5 year base period has well known problems. The professional literature calls for a minimum 10 year base period. This study uses a 4 year base period.
C) Its simply implausible that deaths by party affiliation is sufficiently accurate for either the base period or for the covid period, therefore any conclusion on excess deaths by party should be suspect.
All three of those issues, along with the raw data that conflicts the conclusion should have raised massive red flags, yet large segments of the population got fooled by misinformation.
In response to M Sweet at 10 & 18
M Sweet
I did not respond to your assertion of the shut down of France nuclear reactors on weekends. A broad and more comprehensive understanding of electric generation from various source would show why that assertion is simply inane. Phillipe Chantreau below provides a good response which is based on the data from France's real time grid monitor / Eco2mix. His response is sufficient to provide a basic understanding in lieu of any additional response from me.
Phillipe C @13 - thanks - your review of the real time data is consistent with my review of the real time data. There is reduction in output partially due to reduced demand, but no shut downs of France's nuclear reactors on weekends as mentioned by M Sweet. Additionally, a google search pulled no hits of any documentation or any other information that would support the assertion of weekend shut downs of France's nuclear reactors (other than for maintenance or the like) though there was a reference to a few shut downs in 2012.
Again Thanks for your assistance on the logical and concise interpretation of real time data.
M Sweet - I am responding your addition comments since this thread is about misinformation.
michael sweet at 08:24 AM on 9 January, 2025
"From my standpoint, it is common knowledge that France nuclear reactors shut down on weekends.. People who don't know that need to read more background information."
M Sweet - can you provide a citation for your assertion. There are no hits from Google that support that statement. Nor does the real time data from France's grid monitor support that statement.
www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.21.22280219v2.full
one of the many articles discussing variability of computing excess deaths using different methodologies. Again fairly easy to obtain base level knowledge.
David-acct:
This article from Our World in Data details why your data about per capita death rates is simply incorrect. Multiple countries graphs show the death rate for unvaccinated people is approximately 10 times the death rates of vaccinated peiple. Analysis of the data shows that you are completely wrong.
You are posting misinformation to this site. There are lots of articles that come to this conclusion found easily with Google. You are parroting misinformation sites that are lying to you. Look at the anecdotal evidence in this thread. The difference is so great that only one ICU needs to be examined.
Bob Loblaw: can you copy one the graphs from my link?
[BL] Link fixed. I think it might have had an extra non-printing character at the end (or some junk in the middle?). It took a few tries to clean it up and prevent the web site's code from sticking "https://skepticalscience.com" in front of it.
The graphs on that page do not look like they are simple images that can be copied or linked. Is there one in particular that you want to display?
I am sorry, I am having trouble with links on my tablet. The article is
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination
David-acct:
Yesterday I posted on the nuclear thread , where it is on topic, this quote from Wikipedia:
David-acct @ 19, 23:
Well, at least you acknowledged your error about mixing up Texas and Florida. You have not, as far as I can tell, admitted to mixing up Wallace et al (2022) and Wallace et al (2023), or several other errors you have made.
Your table in comment 19 matches the numbers I get for Wallace et al (2023) eTable1.
You continue your assertion that eTable1 contains raw data that conflicts with the conclusions of Wallace et al.
You have also claimed that "there are other glaring problems that should have been easily recognizable by anyone with basic scientific knowledge."
At this point, I seriously wonder whether you have actually read the full paper (either Wallace et al (2022) or Wallace et al (2023)).
....but the one conclusion that I feel confident in making is that you are not a reliable source of information on the validity of Wallace et al's work.
Part of this exchange with David-acct has been under the implication of "due diligence". I think it is worth discussing how I have gone about checking things, as it illustrates how science should be done.
(The topic of this thread is "New Research...". How research is done becomes relevant, even if this comment seems like a bit of a tangent.)
To start, in comment 2, David-acct draws attention to Wallace et al (2022) [although he actually meant Wallace et al (2023)]. He referred to data in eTable 1.
Tangent: when citing scientific references, you are expected to cite the source where you obtained the information.
So, back to my pursuit of eTable 1.
Now, blog posts and comments are not scientific papers, but attention to detail is still important. David-acct was making strong claims about the reliability (or lack thereof) of scientific work.
So, this little commentaryhelps illustrate why people commenting here are often asked for references to support their claims.
Tangent 2:
I'm old-school. When I read a scientific paper (or write one), my expectation is that the paper will provide an explanation of methodology, the data used (Observations), the result of any calculations or modelling done with the data (Results), interpretation of the data (Interpretations), and conclusions (Conclusions).
Conclusions without clear indications of supporting observations, results, and intepretations are nothing more than opinions.
Interesting Bob, thanks for doing the leg work.
One more foray into the overall world of research. The term "raw data" now appears 42 times in this comment thread. It was first introduced in comment #2. In comment 27, I stated that the use of this term represents an attempt to give certain data an air of authority - "...it must be better because it's raw!" We see this ploy frequently from climate contrarians (a point made by nigelj in comment 6).
So, in the context of the Wallace et al (2023) paper, the infamous eTable 1 was presented as being "raw data". In fact, the participant that introduced the term here has (I think) used "raw data" every time he has referred to that table. Is that table indeed the "raw data" used by Wallace et al?
In a word, no. We can find out more about Wallace et al's data sources by reading the paper. (What a novel idea!) It turns out that they have a section of the paper titled "Methodology".
Wallace et al also have a section titled "Statistical Analysis".
I'm willing to bet that they also aggregated the data over the entire time period, and by state and age level, in order to get the totals in eTable 1.
There are many more clues to what Wallace et al actually did buried in the text of the paper - if you take the time to read it.
So, the next time someone tries to pull the "raw data" argument on you, you can be pretty sure that they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
Don't drink the "raw data" Kool-Aid!
Bob Loblaw’s excellent extensive presentation of aspects of the scientific method leads me to add that the scientific method constantly updates understanding as new information becomes available (Bayesian updating).
Based on the new evidence in this comment string I update my comment @7 as follows:
David_acct,
Thank you for (likely knowingly) providing examples of attempts “...to successfully produce misunderstandings through the presentation of misinformation...” that I referred to in my comment @1.
The real thank you goes to Bob Loblaw ... (the rest of my comment, and my other comments, is/are unchanged at this time)
Bob - you written extensively criticizing trivial items which do not resolve the deficiencies of the study that I have outlined. None of your comments address the substantive issues which devastates the alleged robustness of the study.
A )inserting Texas instead of Florida was a typo.
B) The 25-64 age group had the lowest per capita death rates and delta between the per capita deaths of republicans vs democrats is statistically insignificant. That does not change the substantive issues with the study.
Your response did not address the following substantive issues:
There is absolutely nothing the study or in your detailed response that would demonstrate the study is even remotely robust.
M Sweet at 26
The Wikipedia link was a 2012 post , 12 years out of data. Please cross check your work.
Phillipe Chantreau provided a good response which is based on the data from France's real time grid monitor / Eco2mix which refutes your claim of france "shutting down" their nuclear reactors on the weekends. Further, A broad and general understanding of electric generation from various source , including from nuclear reactors would show why that assertion is inane, its simply not cost or energy effective.
Finally I dont understand your aversion to Raw data or analyizing raw data - your statement - "Please do not cite raw data any more. "
That is the anti-thesis of science.
David-acct at33:
I note that you have refused to answer my analysis of your "raw data". My analysis showed without any doubt that your claim that French reactors do not shut down on weekends was completely false. Pileppe Changes looked at a different time period. Even in Phileppe's data French reactors shut down on the weekends. Bob Loblaw has shown that your recent " raw data" is not even raw data. I saw another thread where you cited the incorrect chart and the citation did not support your argument. You consistently post misinformation here.
I do not like you trying to hide your false arguments in "raw data" which on analysis does not say what you claim it does.
There is a follow-up report from NPR for the item I linked in my comment @15.
NPR – Special Series - Untangling Disinformation: “Meta built a global fact-checking operation. Will it survive?” by Huo Jingnan, Shannon Bond, includes the following quote that is related to the evidence that David-acct repeatedly claimed that efforts to raise awareness about, and limit the harm done by, misinformation are ‘censorship’.
In a video announcing the change, Zuckerberg said fact checking contributed to "censorship" on Meta's platforms and that fact checkers were too "politically biased." Fact checkers point out it is the company, not them, that decides how to police posts on Facebook and Instagram.
"I'm just a simple European but…the United States seems to be the only country in the world where adding information is seen as censorship," said Maarten Schenk, Lead Stories chief operating officer and co-founder.
"Far from censoring, fact-checkers add context," said Laura Zommer, co-founder and CEO of Factchequeado, a nonprofit, Spanish-language fact-checking site that is not part of Meta's program. "We never advocate for removing content. We want citizens to have better information so they can make their own decisions," she added.
Note: The other items presented in the NPR – Special Series - Untangling Disinformation are very informative.
David-acct @ 32:
You are just repeating your empty assertions. There is no "there" in your criticisms. Repeating them does not make them true. You are the one making arguments out of trivialities. And you can't even get the trivialities right without making elementary mistakes.
I see you have not yet actually responded to anything in the Wallace et al paper other than eTable 1. When you show evidence that you have looked at anything else in the paper, it might be worth listening to you.
To further expand on why David-acct's "arguments" in comment 32 are trivial:
There is nothing in your criticisms that would demonstrate that there is any significant problem in the Wallace et al study.
You continue to grasp at straws. You continue to reject Wallace et al for no good reason. You continue to refuse to look at the paper in full.
There is a psychological term for someone that uses a defence mechanism involving a refusal to accept the truth of a phenomenon or prospect.
Oh, I missed this the first time through.
David-acct says in comment 32:
Yet his favoured eTable 1, with its "devastating" evidence that discredits Wallace et al (2023) contains data tables of the following:
Somehow, "deaths by party affiliation" are completely unreliable when Wallace et al use them throughout their analysis, but majickly become completely reliable when David-acct wants to use eTable 1 to support his own conclusions.
It is these kinds of logical conflicts that permeate so much of the contrarian argument space. Again, there is a psychological term for this defence mechanism: compartmentalization. From the Wikipedia page:
Of course, Wallace et al have described how they analyzed the data the obtained to link mortality to party affiliation. I even quoted part of the paper in comment 30. Hint: they did not obtain that data directly from any "state database".
Once again, David-acct could get a better idea of what the authors did - if he'd read the paper. (Or, just fully read all the comments here.)
It is undeniably important to increase awareness and improve understanding of the harm of misinformation.
In my comment @15 I make the point that misleading claims need to have limited influence and any harm done needs to be effectively corrected, undone, and/or neutralized.
That is common sense. For an organization (or community or nation or global humanity) to be sustainable and develop lasting improvements it is important that actions and interactions are governed by everyone learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others.
The following pair of articles are relevant to the issue of harm done by misinformation:
1. CBC News item “'Zombie facts' live on after black plastic and other studies get corrected or retracted” has the sub-heading “Corrections take time and rarely get the attention that the original finding did”.
It opens with the following quote:
Headlines warning people to throw out their black plastic kitchen utensils live on, as do social media posts warning of "secret toxins" in your kitchen.
Less prominent? A correction to the peer-reviewed study those headlines were based on.
It includes the following quote:
Though regrettable, errors happen, including in studies that have been peer-reviewed. They can range from a typo or miscalculation that gets a correction, to mistakes so large the paper is retracted, to rare but full-blown fraud. The promise of the scientific process is that by exposing work to the scrutiny of others, any problems will be corrected over time.
The trouble is, it does take time — and the resulting fixes rarely get the public attention of the original errors, say journal editors.
Timothy Caulfield, author of The Certainty Illusion: What You Don't Know and Why It Matters, and a professor at the faculty of law and school of public health at the University of Alberta, studies the twisting of facts and information.
"It was interesting, exciting, it was scary and it got over-promoted," Caulfield said of the black plastic study. "The correction happens and the problem is, there's almost always less uptake of the correction and the original story lives on, right? It becomes a zombie fact that just won't die."
Zombie misinformation also lives on. There are many zombie misunderstandings regarding climate science and vaccine science.
Related to the ‘compartmentalization’ point made by Bob Loblaw @38 is the concept of ‘motivated reasoning (Wikipedia description linked here)’. People will understandably resist and argue against learning when the increased awareness and improved understanding challenges ‘beliefs that they have developed a passionate loyal faith in as an important part of their developed perceived self-identity’. They will understandably present unreasonable doubts about understandings that they ’feel the need to resist learning about’. They will also understandably claim that promoters of learning they feel the need to resist are ‘resistant to learning – they have to be if they ‘doubt the unjustified doubts that are raised’.
That clearly includes people who have to find ways to claim that increased awareness and improved understanding of climate science, vaccine science ‘is misinformation’, or any other important matter, especially when that improved understanding exposes a clear difference between political groups identifiable by their relative interest in learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others (or themselves).
The article also includes the following advice:
Both Oransky and Caulfield pointed to the importance of media literacy, including critical thinking skills, to counter the spread of misinformation.
Their suggestions include:
• Remember science is complicated with few 'yes' or 'no' answers.
• An immediate recommendation, like to start or stop doing X based on a single study, is rarely evidence-based.
• Keep in mind how scientists are under pressure to produce research quickly that's immediately relevant, which drives science hype.
• Since no study is perfect, the most trustworthy findings are supported by multiple studies that stand up to scrutiny over time.
"The more evidence that a news article or a TikTok video or a government pronouncement includes, the more I trust it, especially if it includes some nuance and some evidence of 'here's what we don't know,'" Oransky said.
2. CBC News “Vancouver strip club marquee cited as hate speech on X” with the sub-header “Known for its cheeky signage, The Penthouse's latest quip took gentle aim at president-elect Donald Trump” opens with the following:
The X account of Vancouver's Penthouse strip club has been suspended, and not for what you'd think.
The social media platform formerly known as Twitter took action after a photo of the club's latest marquee reading, "Forever neighbours, never neighbors" went viral.
The wording references president-elect Donald Trump's recent trolling of Canada by calling it America's 51st state, and uses the juxtaposition of the Canadian spelling of "neighbour" against the U.S. "neighbor" for political satire.
This is a clear indication of how harmfully misleading some leaders are willing to be and how easy it can be to make social media platforms, or even legacy media organizations, harmful misleading weapons. Yet many people will still passionately defend and excuse undeniably harmful misinformation exploiters and promoters.
Bob Loblow @37 &38, very convincing points. You have put a lot of work into that.
OPOF @ 39:
That CBC story about the cancellation of The Penthouse's X account is priceless.
It sounds to me like X would benefit from being bought by an individual who takes free speech seriously, and wants to establish policies where everyone is free to express themselves, regardless of popularity. We don't want censorship!
[What's that? Oh, right. I forgot about that. Well, ignore that request.]
In addition to the link on motivated reasoning, it's worth reposting the link to Morton's Demon.
Bob - You have put considerable effort into your responses . As expected you failed to cross check your own work before you criticized my response.
In your responses at #30 - The study stated 10,325,730 US Deaths age 25 or older.
However, the CDC shows 11,567,394 total deaths less 171,444 under 25 leaving 11,395,950 in the US. The study has an error approximately 10% of basic data.
With an error that large with such an easily verifiable number, are you going to continue to defend the reliability of the data and the robustness of the study?
Two serious math errors - How does the study survive scrutiny?
From the #30- It turns out that the first paragraph of that section contains the following sentence, explaining where they got the mortality data:
o We obtained detailed US weekly mortality data from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, from Datavant, an organization that augments the Social Security Administration Death Master File with information from newspapers, funeral homes, and other sources to construct an individual-level database containing 10 325 730 deaths in the US to individuals aged 25 or older during this period..
Bob - If the study cant get total deaths correct - How do you expect to get death by party affiliation correct. That belief is simply absurd, not matter how much its sugarcoated.
total under 25
2018 2,839,205 39,434 2,799,771
2019 2,854,838 38,944 2,815,894
2020 2,403,351 44,968 2,358,383
2021 3,470,000 48,098 3,421,902
11,567,394 171,444 11,395,950
10325730
1,070,220
0.09391 10.3645941 % errror My appologies on the formatting of the data from the cdc - It did not copy well from excel. Note - that review of source/raw data is quite valuable.
Bob Loblaw,
David-acct certainly appears to exhibit the behaviours of an unwitting victim of Morton's Demon.
However, I am not inclined to reconsider my update @31.
I am inclined to believe that they are likely aware of, and understand, that they are raising unreasonable doubts ... perhaps hoping to appeal to Others who are unwittingly possessed by Morton's Demon.
I had originally been overly-considerate in my comment @7 by suggesting that they were perhaps unwittingly presenting misunderstandings.
The opening statement of their comment @2, "I agree that misinformation is a problem. However, calls to stop misinformation are essentially calls for censorship.", followed by the unreasonable claim that the Wallace et al 2022 study was misinformation, appears to be a deliberate attempt to unjustifiably discredit or dismiss the Ecker et al study.
I would be inclined to change my mind if David-acct openly declared their full agreement with the Ecker et al study except for having some extremely minor, and possibly incorrect, doubts about Wallace et al.
David-acct @ 42:
OMG. You still haven't read their study, have you?
From their Limitations section:
They already know that their source of data is not complete, and that this may bias their results.
Have you figured out that your "can't get the death by party affiliation" argument total destroys your eTable 1 "analysis" yet?
Keep waving your hands. Maybe your opponents will catch a cold.
Reply to Bob at 44 -
In summary the authors admit their study is not robust - which is exactly what I stated.
Yet you continued to defend a non robust study!
OPOF @ 43:
I agree that David-acct seems hell bent for leather to discredit Wallace et al, and is blocking out anything that might run counter to that preferred outcome.
As for Ecker et al (the paper listed in the OP), what does it have to say about Wallace et al (2022 - the earlier version of Walalce et al)? Here is the only reference they make to Wallace et al:
Nothing more than mentioning an "association". They don't even try to call it a cause-effect relationship. Not proof. Not "shows". Just an "association".
For David-acct, even an "association", a slight implication, is too much for him to bear. The mental gymnastics he is going through to try to find something that will stick to the wall is absolutely astounding.
In comment 27, I gave a list of speculations as to why we see no evidence that David-acct has actually read the Wallace et al paper. I am going to add one more. Granted, this is a highly unlikely explanation, but it's not impossible, so here it goes:
Now, as I said, this "paid troll" explanation is extremely unlikely, but it is possible and fits the pattern. On the other hand, perhaps he is just arguing in his spare time.
Of course, as he takes all these hits that destroy his arguments, he keeps claiming "tis but a scratch". Tell you what, David-acct: why don't we "call it a draw"???
David-acct @ 45:
The authors do not state that their study in "not robust". As all good scientists do, they have considered possible uncertainties, but there is lots in the paper to support the argument that they are making.
You really need to work on your reading skills.
David-=acct @ 45:
...and at least Wallace et al know the difference between Florida and Texas, between death rates and excess death rates, and they are consistent in how they use their party affiliation analysis, etc.
I certainly trust their analysis a lot more than I would trust yours.
David-acct:
The Our World in Data report I linked at 24 showed that the death rate among the unvaccinated was ten or more times higher than the death rate for the vaccinated. We know that many more Democrats than Republicans were vaccinated. Where is the surprise thar more Republicans died? That is the result we all expect.
As I previously posted about the Wallace et al 2023 paper, Florida had a successful program to vaccinate everyone over 65 when the vaccine was first released. Most deaths were over 65's. That means that Wallace greatly underestimated the Republican death rate. Wallace states the difference they measured was primarily from Ohio.
The death rates from Our World in Data are an independent confirmation of the Wallace paper. Independent confirmation means that Wallace is not misinformation but your claims are misinformation.
I agree with Michael Sweet @49. Some additional data. The red states had considerably lower vaccination rates than the blue states and the red states had a considerably higher covid mortaility rate after vaccinations were introduced. Please refer:
www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/03/03/the-changing-political-geography-of-covid-19-over-the-last-two-years/
The most likely explanation is republican voters failed to vaccinate and thus died at a higher rate than democrat voters. The republican voters form majorities in those states and its known they were sceptical of vaccines from polling. I know there are other possible explanations but this is the simplest explanation and Occams Razor tells us its therefore the most likely correct explanation.This is all consistent with the findings of the Wallace study. Therefore I see no reason to be hugely sceptical of the studies findings.