Timothy Osborn
Letter stating there is “no climate emergency” repeats inaccurate claims about climate science
Claim:
“Natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850;” no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying natural disasters, or making them more frequent.
Solar forcing is not the main cause of current global warming, contrary to claim by Alex Newman in the Epoch Times
Claim:
The Sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades. There is a systemic bias in UN IPCC's data selection.
Video promoted by John Stossel for Earth Day relies on incorrect and misleading claims about climate change
“This video is misleading in so many ways it’s hard to know where to begin. For a start there’s a repeated assertion that climate “alarmists” won’t enter debate on climate change, but there are many examples of renowned climate scientists such as Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and David Karoly entering into debates with climate change denialists. Many scientists have found such debates to be unhelpful as they give the false impression of balance despite there being broad consensus among climate scientists…”
Electroverse article incorrectly claims the Sun is behind climate change
Claim:
the IPCC is wrong − the sun, not CO2, drove modern global warming
Letter signed by "500 scientists" relies on inaccurate claims about climate science
“The scientific content is completely inaccurate, undocumented, and fails to bring proof for its claims. The ending of the Little Ice Age in 1850 has no logical link with the fact that the Earth is warming now. Most past climate variations have been slower or less intense as the present one, and if they were as fast or severe they brought about mass extinctions in the biosphere. No explanation or proof is brought on the implausibility or inaccuracy of climate models (whose accuracy or uncertainty is precisely quantified and makes their use better than just random guesses).”
There is overwhelming evidence that current climate change is significantly caused by human carbon emissions contrary to claim in Townhall
Claim:
Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors [of climate change], but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one.
Earth's orbit cannot explain modern climate change
Claim:
changes in the solar orbit of the earth, along with alterations to the earth’s axial tilt, are both responsible for what climate scientists today have dubbed as “warming”[...]. In no way, shape, or form are humans warming or cooling the planet
Claim that cosmic rays are a crucial player for current climate change is unsupported
Claim:
Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
Claim:
During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.
Natural variability can not explain modern global warming, as Heartland Institute report claims
Claim:
Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability.
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.”
The Sun cannot explain recent global warming, contrary to what Heartland Institute report claims
Claim:
Solar forcings are not too small to explain twentieth century warming. In fact, their effect could be equal to or greater than the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere.
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.”
Daily Mail inflates data handling disagreement between scientists; makes unsupported “manipulation” accusation
Claim:
world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
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 "…in many ways global warming will be a good thing"
“This article presents a highly biased view of global warming, only presenting the “positive” aspects of it. As the author is criticizing media doing the opposite (always showing the bad side of climate change) it is a shame the author didn’t present a balanced view here.”