Topics:
Reviews of content from
Claim:
Prioritizing plant-based foods and reducing overconsumption of animal-based protein is healthier and reduces greenhouse gas emissions
“Shellenberger’s article promoting his new book “Apocalypse Never” includes a mix of accurate, misleading, and patently false statements. While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction, to do so by inaccurately downplaying real climate risks is deeply problematic and counterproductive.”
“This is an accurate, concise summary of the slowdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and its possible future states. There are a couple of minor issues: specifically, one of the links goes to an irrelevant article, and it would be useful to have a couple more citations to the scientific literature. The title is possibly a little overstated; I might instead say that the AMOC is at risk of collapsing in a warming world.”
Claim:
Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“This article wins the Olympic gold for cherry-picking data, misleading claims, and a long list of scientifically unsupported assertions.”
“This article discusses land and sea ice interchangebly and appears to confuse the two. This is a fundamental error, equivalent in other fields to confusing house and senate, or an artery and vein.”
“The article discusses a manuscript that is still under “open access” review, so naturally there is still significant (and public) discussion about the details among scientific reviewers. Overall the article is accurate, […] and it correctly states that sea level rise is a real problem regardless of this particular Hansen publication.”
