https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Lancet-heat-and-cold-deaths-scaled.jpg

Note the scaling of the x axis.

https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Cold-deaths-topaz.jpeg

Image rescaled.

The Lancet a once respected institution. ::)

From the Lancet:  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00023-2/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_aip_email

I see nothing amiss with the first graph.  The x-axis
is simply compressed on the left of the zero point in
order to encompass the far greater number of cold deaths.

The death numbers are identical on both graphs. There
is no "lie" with the Lancet's figure.

Similarly, the US Environmental Protection Agency on its website shows charts indicating the frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves in the US have been increasingly steadily since the 1960s (heatwave index by decade) . ... But dig a little deeper on the website and one finds a “Heat Wave Index” going back to 1895, which clearly shows the heatwaves were more common before the 1960s, especially in the 1930s, before human-induced climate change was even considered.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 31^st, 2023 at 2:19am:

From the Lancet:  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00023-2/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_aip_email I see nothing amiss with the first graph.  The x-axis is simply compressed on the left of the zero point in order to encompass the far greater number of cold deaths. The death numbers are identical on both graphs. There is no "lie" with the Lancet's figure.

Except it gives a false visual impression of heat deaths being proportionally similar to cold deaths, which is the propaganda lie of the manipulated x axis.

IF you use the same scale as the second graph, you can see that cold kills far, far more people than heat.

Here's another visual misrepresentation

Fossil fuels etc = 29
But the arrow representing it is barely narrower than the other, natural CO2 sources.


https://skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif

Frank wrote on Jul 31^st, 2023 at 12:01pm:

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 31st, 2023 at 2:19am: From the Lancet:  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00023-2/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_aip_email I see nothing amiss with the first graph.  The x-axis is simply compressed on the left of the zero point in order to encompass the far greater number of cold deaths. The death numbers are identical on both graphs. There is no "lie" with the Lancet's figure. Except it gives a false visual impression of heat deaths being proportionally similar to cold deaths, which is the propaganda lie of the manipulated x axis. IF you use the same scale as the second graph, you can see that cold kills far, far more people than heat.

The x-axis is not a scale—it's not meant to be. 
The numbers on the x-axis tell the story, and
tell exactly the same story as the second graph.

These infographics—and the global carbon cycle
example—are meant to simply and quickly convey
information.  The width of the arrows on the carbon
cycle infographic is merely representative; one must
read the numbers—IE: the critical information.

Yeah. About that Carbon cycle, did you notice there is no uncertainty whatsoever? Is that called lying by omission?