Articles tagged as: Misleading definition

Guardian explores sea level rise impact on cities, but fails to make timescale clear

in The Guardian, by Jonathan Watts, Dom Phillips, Helen Roxburgh, Josh Holder, Justin McCurry, Niko Kommenda, Richard Luscombe, & Ruth Michaelson

“This article provides an excellent visual of an unfortunately very likely general future for humanity, in which sea level rise slowly inundates many coastal cities … However, one major drawback of this article is that the magnitude and timescale of the sea level rises described in this report are not well explained.”

— 09 Nov 2017

The Independent makes a giant leap in stating that modern global warming could be “worse than thought” based on a single study

in The Independent, by Andrew Griffin

“The article reports on a paper which suggests there may be complications with ONE method we use to determine past ocean temperature. Notwithstanding possible flaws in the methods of the paper, the article ignores significant evidence from other measurements and observations and tells us nothing directly about the severity of future and present climate change.”

— 01 Nov 2017

Commentary in The Australian ignores evidence and misrepresents research while falsely claiming humans are not responsible for climate change

in The Australian, by Ian Plimer

“Yet another in the exhausting heap of opinions choosing not to engage with evidence, while still expecting readers to believe inaccurate and baseless claims. It is baffling why publications such as The Australian wish to promote opinions that are both not well-argued and demonstrably not based on fact.”

— 26 Oct 2017

Daily Wire article misunderstands study on carbon budget (along with Fox News, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, Breitbart…)

in The Daily Wire, by James Barrett

“The article selectively quotes from interviews and scientific papers to create the false perception that climate models significantly overestimate the rate of warming. The article also falsely implies that the cited paper is about the so called “hiatus” while the paper is actually about the carbon budget for the 1.5 ºC target.”

— 21 Sep 2017

Wall Street Journal op-ed on economic consequences of climate change found naive by scientists

in The Wall Street Journal, by David Henderson, John Cochrane

“This is a very simplistic, almost naive op-ed on climate change impacts. Some assertions such as the one about CO2 being good for plants demonstrates that the authors do not know or understand how increasing CO2 is good or bad for plants, they are just repeating something they heard.”

— 02 Aug 2017

Scientists explain what New York Magazine article on “The Uninhabitable Earth” gets wrong

in New York Magazine, by David Wallace-Wells

“While it is clear that ongoing warming of the global climate would eventually have very severe consequences, the concept of the Earth becoming uninhabitable within anywhere near the timescales suggested in the article is pure hyperbole. The author has clearly done very extensive research and addresses a number of climate threats that are indeed major issues, but generally the narrative ramps up the threat to go beyond the level that is supported by science.”

— 12 Jul 2017

Breitbart article falsely claims that measured global warming has been “fabricated”

in Breitbart, by James Delingpole

“In a cursory attempt at both reporting and climate science, the author glibly highlights a document heavy on accusation and light on reasoned engagement with fact. Implying nefarious motives behind temperature measurement bias correction without providing readers any indication of why this is necessary is misleading and a dereliction of the author’s journalistic responsibility.”

— 11 Jul 2017

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