[mav3ri3k]

I read through the article. Let me share a small story. I recently completed course for Global Warming in College. I would say my instructor was a quite good. He gave the vibe more of a person in industry who taught than a teacher who published papers. Naturally in course of Global Warming we had figures about how much the globe is warming. We have already raised average temperature by few degree. Current goal of global climate organization is to limit any further increase to 1.5 C and at max, at most dire 2 C. Changes to climate are already somewhat irreversible. So this figure of 1.5 is very sensitive and important. Now this is all good but who decides these numbers ? Who is going to take initiative to meet goals ? Who's fault it was to reach these numbers ?

Moral: These are very loaded figures. Enough to make small naive children make protests and the world to notice. The numbers are very diluted based on agenda. Cancer patients might have increased, seems very plausible. But did the study account population increase or simply number of people reporting ? I don't think so. We all want to make world a better place but take these numbers with a grain of salt.

[Wolfenstein98k]

If your claim is as it appears - "this study may not have adjusted for population growth" - you could just click the link and check, rather than spread doubt and uncertainty.

As it stands, the population has not grown 80% in the timespan given so even if they didn't control for population - which would be the most elementary mistake ever and no one would get published having made it - it still doesn't account for the effect size.

Reflexive scepticism, without any effort to verify, isn't any more useful than reflexive belief.

[friend_and_foe]

Interestingly, if you do click the article, you'll find that they did not control for population. The 80% figure is in absolute nominal terms. It's more than the most elementary mistake, it's downright deceptive.

[evrydayhustling]

Wait - your first paragraph has nothing to do with your moral. What's "diluted"?

It seems like you want to say "be skeptical about numbers.". Fine. But what does that have to do with the course?

[mav3ri3k]

My entire post very was poorly structured. Properly conveying experiences is hard in text, my bad. Just be cautious when you see big scary numbers.

[Wolfenstein98k]

The course taught them just how much they should be sceptical of numbers

[lazyasciiart]

You just took a course on Global Warming and you don’t know where the IPCCC target figures come from? Hopefully that’s because you slept through most of the course, because if it wasn’t even covered that is a pretty fundamental set of information to ignore. Here you go: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/whats-number-m...

[greenthrow]

Of course the study is looking at cases per N people. What a silly question, let alone to assume they didn't. HN is getting worse every day.