Articles tagged as: Misleading definition

National Geographic video of starving polar bear should have clarified uncertain link to climate change

in National Geographic, by Sarah Gibbens

“The article contains valid information on the devastating consequences of climate change on polar bears. The only problem as I see it is that the article presents (implicitly) that the polar bear in the video is dying as a consequence of climate change and from not finding enough food due to lack of sea ice…”

— 17 Jan 2018


Conservative Tribune post falsely claims cancelled Arctic research cruise is evidence against climate change

in Conservative Tribune, by Benjamin Arie

“Repeating a version of a debunked argument against climate change science, this biased and misleading political article states that the cancellation of an Arctic research cruise due to increased sea ice at one time and in one region proves climate scientists don’t know anything about climate change over 100 years, which is patently false.”

— 16 Jan 2018


Futurism story on Great Barrier Reef compromised by sensational headline

in Futurism, by June Javelosa and Jolene Creighton

“The content is almost all correct, but the attention-grabbing headline is wrong and isn’t supported by the quotes from two scientists or by the rest of the content.”

— 16 Jan 2018


Breitbart article on California fires misleads by omitting explanation of climate’s influence

in Breitbart, by Joel Pollak

“The Breitbart article provides a poorly reasoned and misleading view of how climate change has contributed to recent fires in California and the rest of the western USA. The most informative part of the article is the link that it provides to a piece by Southern California Public Radio, which, unlike the Breitbart article, provides an informative and unbiased look at factors contributing to these recent fires.”

— 19 Dec 2017


Daily Caller uncritically reports poorly supported conclusion of satellite temperature study

in The Daily Caller, by Michael Bastasch

“The absence of accelerating warming trends is meant to go against prevailing climate science, but I find that to be a strawman argument. In that sense the article is misleading—however, to its credit, it does report on other published results that contradict this recent study, but it fails to provide further context or to make any effort to compare/reconcile the validity of these different studies.”

— 04 Dec 2017


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