Reviews of articles from: The Guardian


Guardian story accurately describes study on environmental impacts of our food system

in The Guardian, by Damian Carrington

“Although the presented facts are clear, the scientists give a personal interpretation of the priorities and needed policies, which are not covered in the source. The data give added value, but are in line with earlier studies.”

— 17 Oct 2018

Guardian story conveys statement by scientists stressing role of deforestation in climate change

in The Guardian, by Oliver Milman

“The article correctly links estimates of current carbon dioxide emissions from land use and land cover change with fairly conservative estimates for potential carbon sequestration embedded in “natural climate solutions” as part of the climate mitigation strategy to avoid 1.5°C warming.
Land-use and land-cover change is responsible for roughly 10-15% of total global carbon dioxide emissions. Forest management, reforestation, and afforestation where appropriate, is part of the climate mitigation portfolio assessed by Integrated Assessment Models used in the IPCC process.”

— 09 Oct 2018

Guardian story accurately covers sea ice event but makes unsupported connection to weather patterns and the Gulf Stream

in The Guardian, by Jonathan Watts

“The article is clear and accurate. The authors have consulted several experts in the field to develop this story. They provide a scientifically sound overview of the current sea ice state north of Greenland, its historical context, and what has caused this anomaly.”

— 28 Aug 2018

Guardian coverage of essay on potential of future “hothouse” climate is generally accurate, but misstates some details

in The Guardian, by Jonathan Watts

“The article reasonably summarizes a new study published in PNAS, which describes the potential of tipping elements to enhance climate warming and the potential for the Earth to transition into a hot-house climate state. The article is careful to point out uncertainties and thus avoids being sensational. However, there are many small errors scattered throughout the article.”

— 09 Aug 2018

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

Analysis of “Record-breaking climate change pushes world into ‘uncharted territory’”

in The Guardian, by Damian Carrington

“The article clearly and concisely documents some of 2016’s climate extremes and puts them in the context of the warming trend.”

— 22 Mar 2017

Analysis of “Arctic ice melt ‘already affecting weather patterns where you live right now'”

in The Guardian, by Damian Carrington

“The article nicely introduces some of the emerging science linking Arctic climate change to extreme weather at lower latitudes. There are no major inaccuracies and the author has sought expert comment form several prominent scientists. However, the article fails to fully capture the large uncertainty about how Arctic warming may influence weather in places further south and how big this effect might be.”

— 21 Dec 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

Analysis of “Greenland’s huge annual ice loss is even worse than thought”

in The Guardian, by Damian Carrington

“I find the headline accurate and supported by the article. The article explains the novelty and impact of the research accurately for the general readership and in particular the context provided from the scientists works really well in this regard.”

— 26 Sep 2016

Analysis of “Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice”

in The Guardian, by Robin McKie

“before propagating a marginal view, one should ensure having a very strong argumentation; in this interview no argumentation is put forward to support Peter Wadhams’ central claim. Wadhams’ alarmism is potentially harmful, because when such spectacular predictions are not realized some people may perceive the whole scientific community or science itself as untrustworthy.”

— 25 Aug 2016


Claim that Arctic warming is already influencing mid-latitude weather correct but still under investigation

"The jet stream meanders more, with big loops bringing warm air to the frozen north and cold air into warmer southern climes."

SOURCE: Damian Carrington, The Guardian, 19 Dec. 2016