Thread by @BjornLomborg

The world’s top medical editors argue for climate action with core argument: Global heat deaths for 65+ increased 50+%

But don’t tell you that the number of 65+ has increased almost as much

Oops

bmj.com/content/374/bm…, bmj.com/content/374/bm…, thelancet.com/journals/lance…

The world’s top medical editors argue for climate action

With amateur mistake: they forget to adjust for more old people

They should correct their paper (but of course, it would also neuter it)

bmj.com/content/374/bm…, bmj.com/content/374/bm…, thelancet.com/journals/lance…

The world’s top medical editors for climate action

Vastly overstating heat deaths
And entirely ignoring dramatic reduction in cold deaths

How are we well informed by this?

bmj.com/content/374/bm…, bmj.com/content/374/bm…, thelancet.com/journals/lance… ihmeuw.org/5k7m

The world’s top medical editors argue for climate action

Misrepresent heat deaths, ignore much more dramatic decline in cold deaths

How are we well informed by this?

bmj.com/content/374/bm…, bmj.com/content/374/bm…, thelancet.com/journals/lance… ihmeuw.org/5k7m

Lots of real health challenges:

Covid 10-15m
Tuberculosis 1.5m/yr
Obesity ~3m/yr
Cardiovascular 18m/yr
Cancer 9.6m/yr

And we have these guys virtue-signaling we should first spend trillions on avoiding deaths in the tens of thousands?

Shameful

https://twitter.com/bjornlomborg/status/1419352336128950280

Here is their article with their first and core argument

apparently published in 233 medical journals including BMJ, the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, the East African Medical Journal, the Chinese Science Bulletin, etc?

bmj.com/content/374/bm…