Tag: Greenhouse gas emissions
Guardian story on climate impacts of diet gets mixed reviews from scientists
“The word “Avoiding” in title and text is overly strong and should have been “Reducing”. Adopting a vegan diet is not necessary, but a reduction to having meat 1-2 times a week and dairy 3-4 times a week would suffice. In fact, flexitarian diets utilize natural resources much more efficiently than vegan diets. In the article, Peter Alexander is quoted saying something to the same effect.”
Guardian story accurately describes study on environmental impacts of our food system
“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.”
Guardian story conveys statement by scientists stressing role of deforestation in climate change
“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.”
The Australian publishes “deeply ill-informed” opinion on climate by Ian Plimer
“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.”
Commentary in The Australian ignores evidence and misrepresents research while falsely claiming humans are not responsible for climate change
“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.”
New York Times’ “straightforward answers” to common climate questions are accurate, too
This article in The New York Times serves as a primer by briefly answering seventeen basic questions about the cause and consequences of—and possible solutions to—climate change. Ten scientists reviewed the article, and generally found the answers to be highly accurate distillations of the research on that topic.
Daily Wire article misunderstands study on carbon budget (along with Fox News, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, Breitbart…)
“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.”
Playing semantics, misleading Breitbart article downplays US contribution to climate change
“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.”
In Paris Agreement op-ed, US Senator Ted Cruz misrepresents the costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
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.
Analysis of “James Lovelock: ‘Before the end of this century, robots will have taken over’”
“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.”