Mark Zelinka
PragerU video on climate change repeats a range of misleading claims by Steven Koonin
“The author of this video, Dr. Steven Koonin, says he is following the scientific reports published by the UN and US government, but by subtly changing wording and choosing not to mention important context this video is very likely to mislead readers.
This style of selective wording and lack of context, an approach called “cherry picking”, applies to every one of Dr. Koonin’s scientific comments.”
PragerU post by Happer uses flawed reasoning to claim that climate models always fail
Claim:
"climate models that attempt to predict the future temperature of the planet...don’t work. They haven’t worked in the past. They don’t work now."; "the number of factors that influence climate—the sun, the earth’s orbital properties, oceans, clouds, and, yes, industrial man—is huge and enormously variable"; "CO2 is a minor contributor to the warming of the earth"
Article in The Guardian misleads readers about sensitivity of climate models by narrowly focusing on single study
“The article correctly reports that the most recent versions of some climate models estimate more warming for a given increase in CO2 concentrations. It is also correct in highlighting that how clouds are represented in these models is the likely reason for these higher estimates. However, it does not report all the science available on this topic and its claims are thus misleading.”
Financial Post commentary misleads about warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions by cherry-picking studies
“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.”
Climate sensitivity estimate given in Heartland Institute’s report is misleading
Claim:
Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial level, in the absence of other forcings and feedbacks, would likely cause a warming of ~0.3°C to 1.1°C
Boston Globe column claims that climate models have consistently failed based on no evidence
Claim:
Climate projections using models based on it [the water vapor feedback] have consistently failed
Analysis of "Why are climate-change models so flawed? Because climate science is so incomplete"
“The facts given by the author regarding the skills of climate models and the state of the art are mostly wrong. The most important processes are not understood by the author and his logic is flawed.”