Article Reviews
“Is this article consistent with the latest thinking and knowledge in science?”
“Would experts in this field endorse the main message of this article?”
These are the types of questions our “feedbacks” are designed to answer. If the feedback is positive, you can generally assume the information you’re reading is of high credibility. If it’s negative, however, you may want to read with extra care and attention — some of the information contained and conclusions reached are not consistent with science.[1]
Analysis of “Thanks to climate change, the Arctic is turning green”
in The Washington Post, by Chris Mooney
"The article reports about recent evidence that terrestrial ecosystems are 'greening' in response to human activities, principally the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. The author presents this 'greening' as a new finding while annual global carbon budgets have reported that about 25% of the fossil-fuel emissions have been taken up by the biosphere since the 1960s. Nothing is fundamentally wrong in the article but it is organized in a somewhat misleading way"
— 04 Jul 2016
Analysis of “…in many ways global warming will be a good thing”
in The Telegraph, by Bjorn Lomborg
"This article presents a highly biased view of global warming, only presenting the “positive” aspects of it. As the author is criticizing media doing the opposite (always showing the bad side of climate change) it is a shame the author didn’t present a balanced view here."
— 09 May 2016
Analysis of “Great Barrier Reef may perish by 2030s…”
in Mashable, by Andrew Freedman
This Mashable article reports on new preliminary research that finds the ongoing coral bleaching event in the Pacific is mainly due to human-caused global warming, and that if global warming proceeds as currently expected, "large parts" of the Great Barrier Reef could die by the mid-2030s. Six scientists have reviewed the article and conclude that it is overall accurate and in agreement with the science.
— 02 May 2016
Analysis of “An Overheated Climate Alarm”
in The Wall Street Journal, by Bjorn Lomborg
"Lomborg is using scientific ‘language’ to suggest that climate change will have insignificant health impacts; this goes against a vast body of evidence. The notion that benefits from warmer winters could be more important than risks from hotter summer in terms of human health is plain wrong."
— 11 Apr 2016
Analysis of “What we’re doing to the Earth has no parallel in 66 million years, scientists say”
in The Washington Post, by Chris Mooney
"It sadly implies that even the PETM, a massive warm climatic excursion, might not be harsh enough to represent an analogue for future climate change, as the Washington Post rightfully points out."
— 23 Mar 2016
Analysis of “Scientists are exaggerating carbon threat to marine life”
in The Times / The Australian, by Ben Webster
"This article misses some major intellectual points about ocean acidification, thanks to what seems to be a willful misunderstanding and misquoting of an interview with Dr. Browman on an Ocean Acidification special issue journal."
— 04 Mar 2016
Analysis of “Seas Are Rising at Fastest Rate in Last 28 Centuries”
in The New York Times, by Justin Gillis
Justin Gillis reports on new results showing that the current rate of sea level rise is unprecedented in a record dating back 2,000 years. The article explains that this rise is attributable to human induced climate change and that higher sea levels are already impacting coastal communities. The seven scientists who reviewed the article confirmed that it is accurate and insightful.
— 25 Feb 2016
Analysis of “The Climate Snow Job”
in The Wall Street Journal, by Patrick Michaels
"This article is indeed a snow job, as the title implies. The author has twisted the facts and distorted the science wildly. The author is well known for his wildly inaccurate climate "forecasts"."
— 26 Jan 2016
Analysis of “2015 Was Not Even Close To Hottest Year On Record”
in Forbes, by James Taylor
"This article makes startlingly inaccurate claims about the earth’s surface and satellite temperature records, as well as attempts to ascertain the earth’s temperatures over the past two millennia through proxy measurements. The author would do well to talk to scientists involved in surface and satellite records and to consult the peer-reviewered scientific literature rather than blogs when writing in the future."
— 22 Jan 2016
Analysis of “2015 Was Hottest Year in Historical Record, Scientists Say”
in The New York Times, by Justin Gillis
The article accurately covers the news that the global surface temperature of the planet in 2015 has set a new record, well above any previous measurement.
— 21 Jan 2016
[1] Note: These feedbacks do not constitute endorsements of the author’s political or economic ideology, rather they are assessments of the scientific foundations and reasoning of the argumentation contained within each article.