RUTHFULLY YOURS

For many, the New York Times and the various federal and international agencies that it often cites are trusted sources for information on climate change. But on one of the risks of climate change — deaths by extreme weather — that trust is misplaced. The following examples from the last two years illustrate that, often enough, those sources spread false or misleading information on that issue.

The science regarding worldwide deaths from extreme weather is clear: Deaths caused by extreme cold are between nine and 17 times higher than those caused by extreme heat, according to peer-reviewed studies published in The Lancet in 2024, 2021, and 2015. The Times, however, has reported otherwise: “Heat waves cause more deaths globally than all other natural disasters combined.” The Times claim is unsourced, so its justification is unclear, but it clearly contradicts the scientific evidence — something that the paper usually notes is a trait of misinformation.

In another example, this Times article reports a conclusion of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a U.N. agency, that extreme heat is the deadliest of all weather events. Although that claim appears to be backed by scientific research cited in a WMO report linked to the article, it isn’t. Remarkably, the very Lancet study that the WMO report cites (in footnote 5), as evidence that extreme heat is the world’s No. 1 weather-related killer, concludes that extreme cold is ten times deadlier. Both the WMO staff and a Times reporter missed the contradiction between their claim and the evidence — resulting in both sources spreading misinformation.

Similarly, both this Times article and the Environmental Protection Agency web page that it links to missed the contradiction between the evidence cited and their assertion that heat is the leading weather-related killer in the United States. Death certificate data posted on the EPA’s website show that far more people died directly from extreme cold nationally (19,000 between 1979 to 2018) than from extreme heat (11,000 between 1979 to 2018). (The EPA pages that I cite — including the one that the Times article linked to — are archived versions that were available when the Times article was published.)

Cherry-picking is another way that the Times and those it quotes reveal a bias toward the idea that extreme heat is the principal weather-related danger. For example, the Times routinely ignores evidence from the CDC that show that extreme cold is deadlier nationwide than extreme heat, apparently relying on National Weather Service data that show the reverse. To illustrate: The Times repeatedly states (e.g., here and here), or allows others to state (e.g., former President Biden here, here, and here), that extreme heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the U.S.

It is particularly noteworthy that the Times ignored the CDC evidence on weather mortality because the paper had previously acknowledged that the agency’s conclusion that cold weather is deadlier than hot weather used “methods most in accordance with global standards.”

The Times and the agencies that it trusts also mislead by omission. For example, this Times article repeats a claim made on a Health and Human Services (HHS) website (archived from the time) that about 2,300 heat-related deaths occurred nationally in 2023. Neither the Times nor HHS explains, however, that the figure cited includes deaths caused directly by extreme heat and those for which heat was one of the contributing causes. Including deaths primarily caused by other things, such as major heart disease, alcohol poisoning, and drug overdoses, significantly elevates the mortality numbers. For example, CDC data show 1,227 deaths directly caused by extreme heat in 2023, compared with the 2,300 deaths (provisional data now updated to 2,415) that include heat as only a contributing cause.

A few weeks after the Times claimed that “heat waves cause more deaths globally than all other natural disasters combined,” I requested a correction. Despite the fact that its claim is contradicted by evidence (here, here, and here), the paper did not make the correction. Why?

One possibility: I was thwarted by the Times’ unpublicized statute of limitations on corrections. As I learned in this email sent to me, the paper has a policy to forgo correcting errors in “old articles” — a policy that contradicts its published, and unqualified, pledge to promptly correct all factual errors. Perhaps I missed the Times’ deadline by requesting a correction in a three-week-old article. As a result, the paper’s inaccurate claim lives on in its pages.

If the oft repeated and simplistic phrase “Follow the science” means anything, it requires, at a minimum, properly describing the evidence underlying publicly reported and influential claims. It’s obvious from the examples above that the Times failed to do that and, thereby, spread false or misleading information on deaths caused by extreme weather. The reason, perhaps, is confirmation bias: If one views warming as an existential threat, it’s easy to assume that extreme heat is deadlier than extreme cold.

No matter what explains the lapses above, a general lesson for the Times applies: Do less trusting and more verification on important issues, especially because statements by widely respected authorities — such as the Times and the agencies it cites — tend to get embedded in the public’s mind, whether they’re true or not.