Lauren Simkins
Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steven Koonin publishes misleading claims about how climate change influences Greenland ice melt
Human-caused climate change is already accelerating Greenland’s melting and is predicted to continue to accelerate it in the future. In addition to Greenland, most glaciers around the planet are also melting at an accelerating pace. This melt, in addition to the expansion of the ocean as it warms, contributes to elevate sea level at an accelerating rate, threatening coastal cities around the globe.
Article in The Sun misrepresents Antarctic discovery and misplaces it on map
This article in The Sun describes the chance discovery of a small island in Antarctica’s Pine Island Bay, which seems to have appeared in the last decade. But the article sensationally connects this with a recent record high temperature at a station elsewhere in Antarctica. While warming trends in the atmosphere and ocean may be relevant, a single weather record is not.
It is not yet clear what is responsible for the island’s appearance.
Simple measurements demonstrate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas contrary to claim in online blogs
Claim:
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
New York Times op-ed claiming scientists underestimated climate change lacks supporting evidence
“Most of the specific facts and statistics in this op-ed are correct, but the overall effect is significantly misleading. The author’s central point is that scientists have been drastically underestimating the scope and the pace of climate change until just the past decade or so, and recent events such as permafrost melting, ice cap loss, and extreme weather events have caught them by surprise. This is simply not true.”
CO2 caused warming during past climate changes, notably as a feedback amplifying other factors
Claim:
CO2 does not cause climate change, it RESPONDS to it [...] temperature always changes first, and CO2 follows
Blaze article badly misrepresents study of Greenland's Jakobshavn Glacier
Claim:
[O]ne of the previously fastest shrinking glaciers in the world is growing again, calling into question the narrative that rapid climate change [...] poses a significant threat to the existence of the human race
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that caused warming during past climate changes, notably as a feedback amplifying other factors
Claim:
Increases in atmospheric CO2 followed increases in temperature. Therefore, CO2 levels could not have forced temperatures to rise.
New York Times series accurately describes research on Antarctic ice sheets and sea level rise, but highlights uncertain studies
“Generally scientifically sound, but caution should be displayed before basing discussion solely on a single modeling study, especially when it incorporates fundamentally different processes relative to other contemporary models.”
Analysis of "Scientists have just detected a major change to the Earth’s oceans linked to a warming climate"
“Changes in ocean chemistry, temperature, and circulation have significant consequences for marine life and can initiate positive feedbacks to accelerate ocean and atmosphere warming. This article is refreshing in that the author presents the results and significance of global ocean oxygen loss accurately and very clearly for non-expert audiences.”
Analysis of "Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has worst coral die-off ever"
“This article is mostly accurate … the frequency of massive bleaching events is increasing, will continue to increase in the near future, and these events do not need to occur annually to kill the reef. The variability of El Niño Southern Oscillation on top of the background warming trend of surface temperatures means that we will exceed the bleaching thresholds more frequently.”
Analysis of "The Phony War Against CO2"
“The article speaks about scientific questions under an “opinion” banner—as if questions about the role of CO2 in the Earth system could be a matter of opinions. For the major final conclusion “With more CO2 in the atmosphere, the challenge [to feed additional 2.5 billion people] can and will be met.”, there is absolutely no scientific credibility, nor support in the scientific literature—it is pure fantasy.”
Analysis of "About Those Non-Disappearing Pacific Islands"
“This article is very interesting because it exemplifies a highly-misleading rhetorical practice that is effective, frequently used, but not easily recognized by the public: “paltering”… A successful palterer will try to avoid being untruthful in each of his/her utterances, but will nonetheless put together a highly misleading picture based on selective reporting, half-truths, and errors of omission…”
Analysis of "James Lovelock: ‘Before the end of this century, robots will have taken over’"
“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and Lovelock has not even come up to the standards of providing what the scientific community would consider to be ordinary evidence. The journalist did not balance Lovelock’s statements with a set of clear statements saying that the vast majority of informed climate scientists (as, for example, represented by the IPCC reports) have reached consensus on conclusions that are diametrically opposed to what Lovelock is saying, and that the IPCC scientists have backed up their statements with a wealth of empirical data, whereas Lovelock is largely opining without providing any substantive evidence to support his rather extraordinary claims.”
Analysis of "Greenland's huge annual ice loss is even worse than thought"
“I find the headline accurate and supported by the article. The article explains the novelty and impact of the research accurately for the general readership and in particular the context provided from the scientists works really well in this regard.”
Analysis of "Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun"
“The theory of sea-level rise and flood problems is pretty well understood — this makes the point that this theory is also happening now and can only be expected to get worse — sea levels have been rising on the US east coast for the last 150 years or more and even if current trends simply continue, impacts will continue to grow. As the article states, we actually expect a significant acceleration of sea-level rise in the coming decades meaning the impacts will grow more rapidly.”
Analysis of "Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice"
“before propagating a marginal view, one should ensure having a very strong argumentation; in this interview no argumentation is put forward to support Peter Wadhams’ central claim. Wadhams’ alarmism is potentially harmful, because when such spectacular predictions are not realized some people may perceive the whole scientific community or science itself as untrustworthy.”