Victor Venema
Warming of Earth’s surface and oceans continues apace, contrary to claims in blog
Claim:
”Global warming started to run out of steam over two decades ago… Half of the apparent global temperature increase from January 1910 to January 2000 is due to administrative adjustments.”
YouTube video falsely claims that climate models systematically over-estimated warming and that we are heading towards an ice age
Claim:
"The official observed temperatures are coming consistently below the scary global warming numbers"; "Melting polar ice triggers ice age"
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…”
NOAA shows clear global warming trends over the past 58 years based on radiosonde data
Claim:
“The 58 year net gain of global temperature is zero. We are simply in a cyclical, normal ebb and flow of temperature.”
Temperature trends in the U.S. are consistent with warming around the world, contrary to Electroverse claim
Claim:
Historical data of temperature in the U.S. destroys global warming myth
NOAA does not fraudulently adjust data to create the illusion of a global warming trend
Claim:
Using complex statistical models, [NOAA] change[s] the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming.
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.”
Telegraph article on climate change mixes accurate and unsupported, inaccurate claims, misleads with false balance
“This article is a prime example of false equivalence, putting fringe figures side by side with mainstream scientific findings while failing to distinguish between their respective credibility. It is rife with numerous factual errors and misrepresentations. Anyone unfortunate enough to read it will understand less of the science – as actually appears in peer-reviewed publications and conferences – not more.”
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).”
Washington Examiner op-ed cherry-picks data and misleads readers about climate models
“This article focuses only on specific lines of evidence that climate models disagree with observations. In doing so, the authors ignore research that helps to reconcile differences between models and observations. The authors do not consider alternate datasets and time periods in which models and observations agree. Models are one tool for understanding climate change; their overall credibility does not hinge on one variable, in one domain, over a specific time period, with respect to a set of imperfect observations.”
Hosted by former Australian senator, Tony Heller repeats false claim that scientists fake the warming trend
Claim:
[T]he raw data, the actual thermometer data[...] shows that the US has been cooling for 80 to 90 years. But the graphs they release to the public show warming trend, and it's all because they've altered the data.
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.
On Fox News, Patrick Michaels falsely claims humans are only responsible for half of global warming
Claim:
So that means that probably about half, maybe half of that nine-tenths of the degree [of total warming] might be caused by greenhouse gases
Popular article in The Independent accurately summarizes June heat in Europe
“The article accurately and clearly states the facts regarding the recent extreme heat in June 2019 and its link to anthropogenic warming. This includes acknowledging that, at this point, this June record and its connection to climate change is based on only a single temperature product and one attribution study, and that further analysis may slightly change the initial conclusions drawn by researchers.”
NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data
Claim:
[NASA] has been adjusting temperatures from the past[...] downward, while adjusting current-day temperatures upward, and those changes are responsible for most of the claimed global warming during that time.
Commentary in The Australian by Ian Plimer relies on false claims to make its case
“If you think that potentially causing hundreds of millions of refugees and trillions of dollars in damages is fine because some plants did well in the same conditions millions of years ago when humans weren’t around, then you could support this article.”
Western Journal op-ed deceives readers with completely unsupported claims
“What would make their case stronger would be if they actually analysed all the data, engaged with the existing scientific literature and made their own contribution to our scientific understanding by publishing a scientific paper. The cherry picking exercise in this Western Journal article does not contribute to our scientific understanding of the world.”
Ian Plimer wrongly claims that carbon dioxide emissions do not cause climate change
Claim:
there is no relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide emissions by humans[...] carbon dioxide has had a minuscule effect on global climate
The Australian publishes "deeply ill-informed" opinion on climate by Ian Plimer
“This article is an amalgamation of logical fallacies, misleading talking points, and downright factually incorrect statements regarding the physics of the climate system. Every talking point in this article has been debunked many times over and it is astonishing that this was published.”
Breitbart repeats blogger’s unsupported claim that NOAA manipulates data to exaggerate warming
Claim:
NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.
New York Times’ news coverage of 2016 global temperature data was an accurate summary
“A clear and accurate article on the temperature record in 2016, looking back at the records in 2015 and 2014. The article places them in the proper context of long-term warming, while mentioning the special effect that helped make the year a record.”
Daily Caller uncritically reports poorly supported conclusion of satellite temperature study
“The absence of accelerating warming trends is meant to go against prevailing climate science, but I find that to be a strawman argument. In that sense the article is misleading—however, to its credit, it does report on other published results that contradict this recent study, but it fails to provide further context or to make any effort to compare/reconcile the validity of these different studies.”
Prof. John Christy incorrectly claims to show climate models are too sensitive to carbon dioxide
Claim:
the real atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than what has been forecast by climate models
New York Times’ “straightforward answers” to common climate questions are accurate, too
This article in The New York Times serves as a primer by briefly answering seventeen basic questions about the cause and consequences of—and possible solutions to—climate change. Ten scientists reviewed the article, and generally found the answers to be highly accurate distillations of the research on that topic.
Lord Lawson falsely claims that global temperatures have declined over last decade
Claim:
according, again, to the official figures—during this past 10 years, if anything, mean global temperature, average world temperature, has slightly declined
2017 is on track to be among the hottest year recorded, scientists are not as surprised as ThinkProgress article suggests
The scientists who have reviewed the article confirm it accurately reports that 2017 is on track to being one of the warmest years on record. Reviewers note this wasn’t as unexpected as the article states, but the fact that 2017 global surface temperature are that high is a clear reminder that global warming has not stopped or slowed down.
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.”
Breitbart article falsely claims that measured global warming has been “fabricated”
“In a cursory attempt at both reporting and climate science, the author glibly highlights a document heavy on accusation and light on reasoned engagement with fact. Implying nefarious motives behind temperature measurement bias correction without providing readers any indication of why this is necessary is misleading and a dereliction of the author’s journalistic responsibility.”
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 "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 "Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures…"
This is an incredibly misleading article. It cherry picks a dataset taking measurements 2 miles up in the atmosphere only over land areas that disagrees with the other two datasets that examine the same values… The author is taking a normal modest cooling at the end of a large El Niño event and spinning it completely out of proportion.
Daily Mail claim about 2016 global temperature record is misleading
Claim:
El Niño drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions.
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.”
Sea level rise is accelerating, and with it the risk associated with coastal storm surge, contrary to claim in Forbes
Claim:
Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated.
Analysis of "Hillary Clinton Boards The Climate Crisis Train To Nowhere"
“The article is inaccurate in several places and conveys that one must choose between solving immediate problems, such as poverty, and long-term risks such as climate change. We can do both, and indeed must do both if we take poverty seriously, since climate change disproportionately affects the poor.”
Analysis of "Climate Exaggeration is Backfiring"
“This picking of quotes that are convenient for Robert Bradley Jr.’s narrative while ignoring what most climate scientists say is one of the most used rhetorical tools of this piece. The other is the use of offensive emotional language to reduce the critical thinking of his readers. People should know that Forbes is nowadays just a blogging platform.”
Analysis of "Environmental records shattered as climate change 'plays out before us'"
The article summarizes the main findings of the “2015 state of the climate” report published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Overall it accurately reports the main findings that many global indicators of the Earth’s climate, notably the global surface temperature, have set new records in 2015 under the joint influence of ongoing human-induced climate change and a strong El Niño event.
Analysis of "What science can tell us about the links between global warming and massive heat waves"
“This is a well-written article that provides a good overall discussion around the connection between climate change and the ongoing US heat wave. In the absence of a specific event attribution study the role of climate change in this event can’t be quantified, but Chris Mooney provides an insightful overview of the role of climate change in heat events generally.”
Analysis of "The Climate Snow Job"
“This article is indeed a snow job, as the title implies. The author has twisted the facts and distorted the science wildly. The author is well known for his wildly inaccurate climate “forecasts”.”
Analysis of "2015 Was Not Even Close To Hottest Year On Record"
“This article makes startlingly inaccurate claims about the earth’s surface and satellite temperature records, as well as attempts to ascertain the earth’s temperatures over the past two millennia through proxy measurements. The author would do well to talk to scientists involved in surface and satellite records and to consult the peer-reviewered scientific literature rather than blogs when writing in the future.”
Analysis of "2015 Was Hottest Year in Historical Record, Scientists Say"
The article accurately covers the news that the global surface temperature of the planet in 2015 has set a new record, well above any previous measurement.
Analysis of "Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate"
“This article peddles the usual false statements masquerading as opinion that we have been seeing for years, and would not be published by a reputable publisher. Most of the scientific statements in the article are false or misleading.”
Analysis of “South Carolina flooding is the type of event climate scientists have warned about for years”
“It’s tricky to evaluate the contribution of climate change to a particular weather event, but generally speaking, the author provides an accurate summary of the challenges of this research, and the range of scientific thinking about it.”
Analysis of “Deceptive temperature record claims”
“Scientists unanimously qualify this article as misleading and in disagreement with elementary science.”