Articles tagged as: Misleading 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


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


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 “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