Articles tagged as: Misleading definition

Analysis of “Why are climate-change models so flawed? Because climate science is so incomplete”

in The Boston Globe, by Jeff Jacoby

“The facts given by the author regarding the skills of climate models and the state of the art are mostly wrong. The most important processes are not understood by the author and his logic is flawed.”

— 16 Mar 2017


Analysis of “Scientists: Here’s What Really Causes Climate Change (And It Has Nothing To Do With Human Beings)”

in The Daily Wire, by James Barrett

“The article misuses a Nature article on a geological process 90 millions years ago to argue the warming of the past century is not anthropogenic. It seems the reasoning is ideologically motivated rather than based on reality.”

— 28 Feb 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 “The Phony War Against CO2”

in The Wall Street Journal, by Rodney Nichols and Harrison Schmitt

“The article speaks about scientific questions under an “opinion” banner—as if questions about the role of CO2 in the Earth system could be a matter of opinions. For the major final conclusion “With more CO2 in the atmosphere, the challenge [to feed additional 2.5 billion people] can and will be met.”, there is absolutely no scientific credibility, nor support in the scientific literature—it is pure fantasy.”

— 03 Nov 2016


Analysis of “Hillary Clinton Boards The Climate Crisis Train To Nowhere”

in Forbes, by Roy Spencer

“The article is inaccurate in several places and conveys that one must choose between solving immediate problems, such as poverty, and long-term risks such as climate change. We can do both, and indeed must do both if we take poverty seriously, since climate change disproportionately affects the poor.”

— 29 Oct 2016


Analysis of “About Those Non-Disappearing Pacific Islands”

in The Wall Street Journal, by Bjorn Lomborg

“This article is very interesting because it exemplifies a highly-misleading rhetorical practice that is effective, frequently used, but not easily recognized by the public: “paltering”… A successful palterer will try to avoid being untruthful in each of his/her utterances, but will nonetheless put together a highly misleading picture based on selective reporting, half-truths, and errors of omission…”

— 17 Oct 2016


Analysis of “James Lovelock: ‘Before the end of this century, robots will have taken over’”

in The Guardian, by Decca Aitkenhead & James Lovelock

“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and Lovelock has not even come up to the standards of providing what the scientific community would consider to be ordinary evidence. The journalist did not balance Lovelock’s statements with a set of clear statements saying that the vast majority of informed climate scientists (as, for example, represented by the IPCC reports) have reached consensus on conclusions that are diametrically opposed to what Lovelock is saying, and that the IPCC scientists have backed up their statements with a wealth of empirical data, whereas Lovelock is largely opining without providing any substantive evidence to support his rather extraordinary claims.”

— 07 Oct 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 “Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice”

in The Guardian, by Robin McKie

“before propagating a marginal view, one should ensure having a very strong argumentation; in this interview no argumentation is put forward to support Peter Wadhams’ central claim. Wadhams’ alarmism is potentially harmful, because when such spectacular predictions are not realized some people may perceive the whole scientific community or science itself as untrustworthy.”

— 25 Aug 2016