Charles Koven
2°C is not known to be a "point of no return", as Jonathan Franzen claims
Claim:
The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius
Investor’s Business Daily editorial misrepresents study to claim plants will prevent dangerous climate change
“Our nitrogen study does not detract from the urgency of the climate problem, nor the unequivocal evidence of the role of carbon pollution in causing global climate change. The climate threat is clear and present and we must solve it rapidly by reducing emissions and capturing existing CO2 from the atmosphere.”
Washington Post accurately covers permafrost study, albeit under a somewhat sensational headline
The article accurately described a study indicating that more of the carbon released from thawing permafrost will be released as methane and provided context on its overall implications by quoting comments from two other researchers. The article’s headline, however, may mislead readers through the use of the sensational phrase “the Arctic’s carbon bomb”, which calls to mind a catastrophic, explosive release of greenhouse gas.
New York Times accurately assesses the state of Alaskan permafrost
“The article is accurate in its descriptions of the physical and ecological processes that are behind permafrost changes. It also does a good job of getting across the nature of the work of actual scientists working in the field, what they are doing and why they are doing it.”
Scientists explain what New York Magazine article on “The Uninhabitable Earth” gets wrong
“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.”
ThinkProgress story on thawing Alaskan tundra generally accurate but somewhat misleading
“The writing is a bit over the top, but factually correct in general. The main weakness is in linking the solidly evidence-based observed changes from the Commane et al paper with much more speculative links such as the Siberian methane bubbles.”