Topics:
“This article selectively cherry-picks studies showing low climate sensitivity, leaving out whole lines of evidence (e.g. paleoclimate studies) that agree with the sensitivity estimates found in models. It also glosses over the many criticisms of instrumentally based (or “energy balance”) sensitivity estimates published in recent years.”
“The article has almost nothing to do with the modern state of sea-level science. The author tries to call into question that global warming causes sea-level rise, and does so by cherry-picking a short segment of data from 1915-1945, a time when data quality is poor and the warming signal small—a bizarre approach that could never pass scientific peer review and is apparently aimed at misleading a lay audience.”
“Global geological sea-level data, data from tide gauge and now satellite data all show that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. These accelerations in sea level is a cause for great concern.”
Claim:
The ice caps were going to melt. They were going to be gone by now, but now they're setting records
Many stories were written about climate science in 2017, but were the ones that “went viral” scientifically accurate? To find…
The diagram below shows that the articles mostly rely heavily on each other—like in an echo chamber—with very few outside sources included in the reporting. A first wave of “reporting” appeared in The Spectator, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart, which were then largely copied and pasted in a second wave of posts with larger audiences…
On Thursday August 10, BBC Radio 4’s “Today” broadcasted an interview in which Nigel Lawson commented on Al Gore’s new…
The scientists who have reviewed the article confirm it accurately reports that 2017 is on track to being one of the warmest years on record. Reviewers note this wasn’t as unexpected as the article states, but the fact that 2017 global surface temperature are that high is a clear reminder that global warming has not stopped or slowed down.
“While it is clear that ongoing warming of the global climate would eventually have very severe consequences, the concept of the Earth becoming uninhabitable within anywhere near the timescales suggested in the article is pure hyperbole. The author has clearly done very extensive research and addresses a number of climate threats that are indeed major issues, but generally the narrative ramps up the threat to go beyond the level that is supported by science.”
“This article grossly misinterprets open-access scientific papers by simply looking at graphs and entirely ignoring their meaning as explained by authors in the text.”
