William Anderegg
Planting trees can help mitigate some aspects of climate change, but it cannot solve all environmental crises
Claim:
“Trees provide a solution to almost all environmental crises we're facing. Trees reverse climate change by cleaning carbon from the air.”
Climate scientists agree that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are primarily responsible for climate change, contrary to claims in Clear Energy Alliance video
Claim:
The scientific consensus on whether global warming is human caused is not 97 percent, it’s less than 1 percent. There is no way to measure the human impact on climate change.
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.
Global Warming and fire suppression practices boost wildfires in the US West, as correctly reported in The Atlantic
“The article provides an excellent summary of how rising air temperatures are leading to drier conditions and more fire activity among forests in parts of the western United States. The article is strengthened by including multiple interviews with scientists who have produced seminal studies of fire-climate interactions in this region.”
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…”
The Telegraph publishes false information about Arctic climate
“This article suffers from a common error in reasoning. The author focuses on individual “snapshots” of the state of the climate while ignoring the long-term trends. Those trends occur over many decades and must be observed/considered over those time scales.”
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.”
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 “Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You”
“This article wins the Olympic gold for cherry-picking data, misleading claims, and a long list of scientifically unsupported assertions.”