Andrew Shepherd
Telegraph article on climate change mixes accurate and unsupported, inaccurate claims, misleads with false balance
“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.”
Story on congressman's incorrect claims about sea level rise could have corrected them more explicitly
“The comments from the members of the Committee suffer from severe inaccuracies and misconceptions, and citations of the invited climate scientist mostly address those issues.
In general, the views that go against our understanding of the climate change process are underlined and presented as such by the author, but rarely supported by statements or explanations that go beyond the immediate replies from the invited climate scientist. Some of the inaccurate statements quoted in the text are thus left with an incomplete challenge.”
Guardian explores sea level rise impact on cities, but fails to make timescale clear
“This article provides an excellent visual of an unfortunately very likely general future for humanity, in which sea level rise slowly inundates many coastal cities … However, one major drawback of this article is that the magnitude and timescale of the sea level rises described in this report are not well explained.”