Articles tagged as: Flawed reasoning definition

Breitbart misrepresents research from 58 scientific papers to falsely claim that they disprove human-caused global warming

in Breitbart, by James Delingpole

“This article grossly misinterprets open-access scientific papers by simply looking at graphs and entirely ignoring their meaning as explained by authors in the text.”

— 08 Jun 2017

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

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 “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 “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 “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