Michael Henehan
CO2 emissions from human activities have imbalanced the atmospheric carbon budget, significantly contributing to climate change, contrary to online claim
Claim:
Less than 5% of carbon dioxide emissions are produced by man [... they] can’t cause 30% of today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide
It's true that the current carbon dioxide level is higher than any time in human existence
Claim:
the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has climbed to a level last seen more than 3 million years ago — before humans even appeared on the rocky ball we call home
In popular video, Dan Peña falsely claims humans aren't causing climate change
Claim:
Fifty-five thousand years ago the whole world was 2°C warmer than it is today[...] It's all cyclical; [human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are] not a fart in the wind. Sea level rise is not going to happen.
Breitbart article baselessly claims a study of past climate invalidates human-caused climate change
“By the reasoning of this article, if a rock rolled down a hill three million years ago, no human can be responsible for rolling a rock down a hill today. The fallaciousness of this reasoning is astounding.
It is hard to imagine that a well-intentioned person can so profoundly misunderstand the science. Assuming the author is acting in good faith, this article provides evidence that motivated reasoning can produce results that appear delusional to well-informed people.”
CNN accurately covers latest IPCC report
This CNN story covered the October release of the IPCC’s “Global Warming of 1.5 °C” report. The report, which was requested by governments during the 2015 Paris Agreement negotiations, details the impacts of 1.5 °C compared to 2 °C and the emissions cuts required to limit warming to either of those levels. Scientists who reviewed the story found that it conveyed the information in the report without any errors, and included comments by scientists to summarize the report’s implications.
Business Insider highlights health impacts of climate change, but some aspects are misleading
“The article draws attention to the high CO2 at present and the health risks of climate change, but it gives the incorrect impression that breathing CO2 directly is a major cause of concern. The most important health effects of climate change—heat stress, vector-borne diseases, air pollution, access to food and water, severe storms, displacement—do get some discussion here.”
EPA’s Scott Pruitt incorrectly suggests climate change might not be “a bad thing”
Claim:
We know that humans have most flourished during times of, what, warming trends. I think there are assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that is necessarily a bad thing.
The Independent makes a giant leap in stating that modern global warming could be “worse than thought” based on a single study
“The article reports on a paper which suggests there may be complications with ONE method we use to determine past ocean temperature. Notwithstanding possible flaws in the methods of the paper, the article ignores significant evidence from other measurements and observations and tells us nothing directly about the severity of future and present climate change.”
The Daily Wire makes wild claims about climate change based on no evidence
“The article contains little to no rational treatment of observational data, but relies on heavily biased secondhand interpretation… Even the title is based on a lie. There is no ‘study’ that finds static temperatures for 19-years. This article is based on a newspaper article that makes this false statement based in turn on a blog post…”
Analysis of "Record-breaking climate change pushes world into ‘uncharted territory’"
“The article clearly and concisely documents some of 2016’s climate extremes and puts them in the context of the warming trend.”
Analysis of "U.S. scientists officially declare 2016 the hottest year on record. That makes three in a row."
“The article accurately conveys the US agencies’ declaration of 2016 as the hottest year on record. It provides some good background material on why the agencies’ numbers differ slightly (treatment of the Arctic) and the contributing roles of El Niño and man-made global warming.”
Analysis of "What we’re doing to the Earth has no parallel in 66 million years, scientists say"
“It sadly implies that even the PETM, a massive warm climatic excursion, might not be harsh enough to represent an analogue for future climate change, as the Washington Post rightfully points out.”
Analysis of “The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here”
“The article rightly communicates the urgency and seriousness of human-induced climate change, […] However, by the title, subtitle, and overall framing, it is likely to give an impression that some current events can be attributed to human influence for which the scientific evidence supporting such an attribution is either weak or non-existent.”