Their angle was health equity in the context of global warming and how it impacts different populations to various degrees. That’s a common trend in global warming related issues. Their argument is fair enough.
My issue with the paper was specifically with the projections they made, which extrapolated the effect on sleep caused by the weather all the way to effects on a 50-year interval caused by warming trends. But by the authors own admission people can physiologically and technologically adapt — at least partially — over long enough time periods. To be frank I think it’s a way to make a compelling headline. They have the statistical tools they have, it would be incredibly hard to account for long-term adaptation, and so they come up with some statistical estimate of the long-term trend. I see why they did it, but from a readers perspective it’s okay to be critical.
Because global warming is a large driver of health inequity and a billion other issues as well?