3
$\begingroup$

Some people are claiming the graph below is climate-change propaganda because of the different scales for cold vs heat, but it seems to me that using the same scale would make the heat data unreadable.

What is the data visualization expert consensus on this?

From: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00023-2/fulltext

excess death rate by age

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ The scales are not that different, so I do not think using the same scale (as should be done) would make it unreadable. $\endgroup$
    – kjetil b halvorsen ♦
    Commented Aug 21, 2023 at 21:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What does the graph mean? The colours indicate some sort of distribution like coloured boxplot? How does the graph relate to climate? $\endgroup$
    – Sextus Empiricus
    Commented Aug 21, 2023 at 21:27
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I find this graphic unreadable and deceptive for many reasons. The closer one looks, the weirder it gets. E.g., what's the point of the break in the scale at right? What are those subtotals doing at four locations in the chart? What do the colors mean--are they stacked, additive (overlapping), or something else? Why are the colors more saturated for the subtotals and total? Why are the age groups split into such uneven bins? Why alphabetize the countries? And, of course, there's the five-fold exaggeration of the right scale. This graphic is in desperate need of a complete redesign. $\endgroup$
    – whuber ♦
    Commented Aug 21, 2023 at 21:43

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

'Climate change propaganda' is an inflammatory phrase to use, considering that climate change has been the overwhelming consensus among scientists for decades, and evidence has grown stronger and stronger as the years pass. I am going to assume that this is unintentional on your part, but please be aware that none of what I say below in any way supports that framing of your question.

I don't think it is a well-designed figure. The design invites comparison between the left and right sides (to some extent) but the different scales hinders it. If this was plotted with two completely separate panels I would find the different scales much more justifiable. I would certainly not claim that it is intentionally misleading without more evidence. It's entirely possible that the authors only intended for comparisons to be made vertically (between countries), and had not considered that readers would attempt horizontal comparisons (between hot and cold).

There are some additional aspects to the figure that I don't understand, though these may be explained in the paper. The dominance of the darkest shades (indicating >85 I presume, and not <85 as stated) only for the 'Total' and 'Europe' entries is odd. And the interrupted X-axis on the right (hot) side seems silly though it has no practical consequence.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (+1). I think the problem boils down to the graph trying to show multiple things difficult to show clearly on a single graph (e.g. comparison of magnitude of excess deaths between countries vs. age composition of excess deaths inside each country). It is a bit reminiscent of the well-known population pyramid design, so may invite to a comparison of heat vs. cold for each country, but it is not well-designed for this purpose. $\endgroup$
    – J-J-J
    Commented Jul 29, 2023 at 7:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks mkt. Oh I absolutely agree with the consensus. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was in a discussion with climate-change deniers who claimed that this graph is evidence of fraud. Which I think we can agree is ridiculous. Anyway, I appreciate your insights - thanks again. $\endgroup$
    – Kent Skinner
    Commented Jul 31, 2023 at 3:32
  • $\begingroup$ @KentSkinner No problem at all, I'm glad it was useful. $\endgroup$
    – mkt
    Commented Jul 31, 2023 at 5:00
0
$\begingroup$

Read the paper. The authors clearly knew how to anlayze and graphically present their data. This graph is an eye chart intended to leave a quick impression. If they plotted the data on the same x-axis scale, it would be abundantly clear that mortality from cold is a far greater danger than mortality from heat. However, w/o careful study, one could easily assume that heat is a much greater mortality threat and roughly equivalent to cold.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ For reasons I placed in a comment to the question, I maintain the authors clearly did not have any good idea of how to graphically present these data. A good graphic will present a correct and undistorted picture of the facts even at a glance: this criterion is omnipresent in the statistical literature on graphics from Bertin to Tukey to Tufte to Cleveland to Wilkinson and on. $\endgroup$
    – whuber ♦
    Commented Aug 21, 2023 at 21:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.