Analysis of Jeb Bush's climate statements
“The candidate does not reject the science altogether but does not seem to grasp the scale of the issue.”
“The candidate does not reject the science altogether but does not seem to grasp the scale of the issue.”
“This candidate seems unaware of the vast science on this topic and its basic conclusions that the Earth’s atmosphere is warming.”
“The candidate at least acknowledges that humans play a role in climate change, but he/she is misinformed about anthropogenic versus natural contributions.”
“This article wins the Olympic gold for cherry-picking data, misleading claims, and a long list of scientifically unsupported assertions.”
“This article discusses land and sea ice interchangebly and appears to confuse the two. This is a fundamental error, equivalent in other fields to confusing house and senate, or an artery and vein.”
“A well written and balanced article that draws on a range of scientific opinion from well-established climate scientists, hurricane specialists and forecasters. The article provides a nice summary of the major physical factors at play, while also highlighting the issues and challenges to do with detection and attribution of extreme events such as this.”
“The article discusses a manuscript that is still under “open access” review, so naturally there is still significant (and public) discussion about the details among scientific reviewers. Overall the article is accurate, […] and it correctly states that sea level rise is a real problem regardless of this particular Hansen publication.”
“It’s tricky to evaluate the contribution of climate change to a particular weather event, but generally speaking, the author provides an accurate summary of the challenges of this research, and the range of scientific thinking about it.”
“the evidence of accelerating glacier melt and retreat in response to manmade warming is crystal clear. Any other conclusion is willfully ignoring the data, the facts, and the conclusions of the entire glaciological community.”
“Scientists unanimously qualify this article as misleading and in disagreement with elementary science.”