Articles tagged as: Cherry-picking definition

The Daily Wire makes wild claims about climate change based on no evidence

in The Daily Wire, by Joseph Curl

“The article contains little to no rational treatment of observational data, but relies on heavily biased secondhand interpretation… Even the title is based on a lie. There is no ‘study’ that finds static temperatures for 19-years. This article is based on a newspaper article that makes this false statement based in turn on a blog post…”

— 09 May 2017


The Telegraph publishes false information about Arctic climate

in The Telegraph, by Christopher Booker

“This article suffers from a common error in reasoning. The author focuses on individual “snapshots” of the state of the climate while ignoring the long-term trends. Those trends occur over many decades and must be observed/considered over those time scales.”

— 09 May 2017


Analysis of “Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmism”

in The Spectator, by James Delingpole

The scientists who have analyzed the article show that it contains significant inaccuracies, notably for its core assumptions, and misrepresents scientific studies and scientists it cites to make its point. Reviewers also note that the article knocks down strawman arguments that do not represent the state of scientific knowledge (scientists do not claim the ocean will become a “giant acid bath”).

— 10 Jan 2017


Analysis of “Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures…”

in Daily Mail, by David Rose

This is an incredibly misleading article. It cherry picks a dataset taking measurements 2 miles up in the atmosphere only over land areas that disagrees with the other two datasets that examine the same values… The author is taking a normal modest cooling at the end of a large El Niño event and spinning it completely out of proportion.

— 02 Dec 2016


Analysis of “Climate Exaggeration is Backfiring”

in Forbes, by Robert Bradley Jr.

“This picking of quotes that are convenient for Robert Bradley Jr.’s narrative while ignoring what most climate scientists say is one of the most used rhetorical tools of this piece. The other is the use of offensive emotional language to reduce the critical thinking of his readers. People should know that Forbes is nowadays just a blogging platform.”

— 29 Sep 2016


Analysis of “…in many ways global warming will be a good thing”

in The Telegraph, by Bjorn Lomborg

“This article presents a highly biased view of global warming, only presenting the “positive” aspects of it. As the author is criticizing media doing the opposite (always showing the bad side of climate change) it is a shame the author didn’t present a balanced view here.”

— 09 May 2016


Analysis of “An Overheated Climate Alarm”

in The Wall Street Journal, by Bjorn Lomborg

“Lomborg is using scientific ‘language’ to suggest that climate change will have insignificant health impacts; this goes against a vast body of evidence. The notion that benefits from warmer winters could be more important than risks from hotter summer in terms of human health is plain wrong.”

— 11 Apr 2016


Analysis of “Scientists are exaggerating carbon threat to marine life”

in The Times / The Australian, by Ben Webster

“This article misses some major intellectual points about ocean acidification, thanks to what seems to be a willful misunderstanding and misquoting of an interview with Dr. Browman on an Ocean Acidification special issue journal.”

— 04 Mar 2016


Analysis of “The Climate Snow Job”

in The Wall Street Journal, by Patrick Michaels

“This article is indeed a snow job, as the title implies. The author has twisted the facts and distorted the science wildly. The author is well known for his wildly inaccurate climate “forecasts”.”

— 26 Jan 2016


Analysis of “2015 Was Not Even Close To Hottest Year On Record”

in Forbes, by James Taylor

“This article makes startlingly inaccurate claims about the earth’s surface and satellite temperature records, as well as attempts to ascertain the earth’s temperatures over the past two millennia through proxy measurements. The author would do well to talk to scientists involved in surface and satellite records and to consult the peer-reviewered scientific literature rather than blogs when writing in the future.”

— 22 Jan 2016