.
Tag: Global temperature
Telegraph article on climate change mixes accurate and unsupported, inaccurate claims, misleads with false balance
2019-10-18
“This article is a prime example of false equivalence, putting fringe figures side by side with mainstream scientific findings while failing to distinguish between their respective credibility. It is rife with numerous factual errors and misrepresentations. Anyone unfortunate enough to read it will understand less of the science – as actually appears in peer-reviewed publications and conferences – not more.”
Popular article in The Independent accurately summarizes June heat in Europe
2019-07-05
“The article accurately and clearly states the facts regarding the recent extreme heat in June 2019 and its link to anthropogenic warming. This includes acknowledging that, at this point, this June record and its connection to climate change is based on only a single temperature product and one attribution study, and that further analysis may slightly change the initial conclusions drawn by researchers.”
Western Journal op-ed deceives readers with completely unsupported claims
2019-02-26
“What would make their case stronger would be if they actually analysed all the data, engaged with the existing scientific literature and made their own contribution to our scientific understanding by publishing a scientific paper. The cherry picking exercise in this Western Journal article does not contribute to our scientific understanding of the world.”
USA Today story updates readers on trend in monthly global temperatures
2019-01-14
“The piece accurately reports the surface temperature record warming of recent decades and joins the dots appropriately to the underlying cause of human emissions. It appropriately draws the distinction between regional/national records and the global mean behaviour. The included quotes are to authoritative sources.”
Popular “Friends of Science” video promoted by Youtube presents long list of climate myths
2018-12-21
“The video presents a litany of the usual climate denier talking points, none of which hold any water. It is full of outright false claims and does not even shy away from presenting a fake TIME magazine cover that supposedly warned of an ice age. “Friends of Science” is an advocacy group “largely funded by the fossil fuel industry””
Popular story on Fox2Now accurately describes 2017 global temperature, sea ice extent
2018-12-04
“The article is factually correct. The reality that Arctic sea ice is getting younger is not so well known from the public, so such an article is welcome.
The article’s title and the front video are about sea ice, but most of the rest of the text is about global temperatures.”
Washington Post accurately describes ocean warming study (which has since been corrected)
2018-11-03
“The Washington Post article accurately reports the results and links to other topics using reliable sources. Quotations from Pieter Tans and Paul Durack add important caveats showing that this is strong new evidence but not the final say. This caution is vital for readers to interpret the findings.”
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.”
New York Times’ news coverage of 2016 global temperature data was an accurate summary
2018-01-16
“A clear and accurate article on the temperature record in 2016, looking back at the records in 2015 and 2014. The article places them in the proper context of long-term warming, while mentioning the special effect that helped make the year a record.”
Daily Caller uncritically reports poorly supported conclusion of satellite temperature study
2017-12-04
“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.”