Articles tagged as: Biased definition

Playing semantics, misleading Breitbart article downplays US contribution to climate change

in Breitbart, by Thomas D. Williams

“This whole post is based on semantics and basically one big strawman fallacy. The author is deliberately confusing air pollution from suspended particulate matter (as discussed in the WHO report) with pollution from carbon dioxide emissions (as discussed in the Reuters link and the Paris Agreement). Even though CO2 does not impact our health through “disease-causing pollutants that get into people’s lungs”, it does change our environment and the Earth’s climate, and in that sense does classify as a pollutant.”

— 06 Jun 2017


In Paris Agreement op-ed, US Senator Ted Cruz misrepresents the costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions

in CNN, by Senator Ted Cruz

Sen. Cruz’s article cites a single report that assessed only the costs of climate actions, relying on a series of assumptions that maximized those estimated costs, and that excluded the benefits of avoided climate change and of renewable sources of energy.

— 31 May 2017


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


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 “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 “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