.
Tag: Climate models
Washington Examiner op-ed cherry-picks data and misleads readers about climate models
2019-08-31
“This article focuses only on specific lines of evidence that climate models disagree with observations. In doing so, the authors ignore research that helps to reconcile differences between models and observations. The authors do not consider alternate datasets and time periods in which models and observations agree. Models are one tool for understanding climate change; their overall credibility does not hinge on one variable, in one domain, over a specific time period, with respect to a set of imperfect observations.”
The Australian publishes “deeply ill-informed” opinion on climate by Ian Plimer
2018-08-09
“This article is an amalgamation of logical fallacies, misleading talking points, and downright factually incorrect statements regarding the physics of the climate system. Every talking point in this article has been debunked many times over and it is astonishing that this was published.”
USA Today story accurate but lacks clarity regarding timescales over which warming could be underestimated
2018-07-10
“An accurate and balanced article that gives readers a good flavour of the research but the reference to “Earth’s history” might confuse some when it otherwise refers to the studied period: the past 3.5 million years. Neatly explains a lot of the key points in a small word count, but…”
Daily Wire article misunderstands study on carbon budget (along with Fox News, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, Breitbart…)
2017-09-21
“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.”
Analysis of “Why are climate-change models so flawed? Because climate science is so incomplete”
2017-03-16
“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.”
Analysis of “James Lovelock: ‘Before the end of this century, robots will have taken over’”
2016-10-07
“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.”