Topics:
Reviews of content from
“The article’s scientific credibility is very low. The author cherry-picks data, makes broad generalizations and characterizations based on incomplete or flimsy reasoning, and repeatedly misinterprets technological and economic progress in justifying false claims and misinformation minimizing global warming impacts.”
Claim:
“You don’t need masks, there is a cure [for COVID-19] ... It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax”
Claim:
Scientists were caught 'adjusting' sea level data to create false impression of rising oceans
Claim:
the bushfires [in Australia] were caused by arsonists and a series of lightning strikes, not 'climate change'
Claim:
500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’.... More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a 'European Climate Declaration' to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
“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.”
Claim:
NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.
“The Breitbart article provides a poorly reasoned and misleading view of how climate change has contributed to recent fires in California and the rest of the western USA. The most informative part of the article is the link that it provides to a piece by Southern California Public Radio, which, unlike the Breitbart article, provides an informative and unbiased look at factors contributing to these recent fires.”
“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.”
“This article grossly misinterprets open-access scientific papers by simply looking at graphs and entirely ignoring their meaning as explained by authors in the text.”
