Misleading
Global surface temperatures are increasing according to climate projections, contrary to Wall Street Journal claim
Claim:
the warming is not nearly as great as the climate change computer models have predicted.
Reviews of content from
The Wall Street Journal
-
Source: The Wall Street Journal, Wall Street Journal editorial, 2017-01-19 -
-2Very lowAnalysis 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.”
-
Wall Street Journal op-ed ignores evidence of negative impacts of increasing CO2
Claim:
Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has helped raise global food production and reduce poverty.
Source: The Wall Street Journal, Harrison Schmitt, Rodney Nichols, 2016-10-31 -
-1.2Low
Analysis of "About Those Non-Disappearing Pacific Islands"
“This article is very interesting because it exemplifies a highly-misleading rhetorical practice that is effective, frequently used, but not easily recognized by the public: “paltering”… A successful palterer will try to avoid being untruthful in each of his/her utterances, but will nonetheless put together a highly misleading picture based on selective reporting, half-truths, and errors of omission…”
-
-1.3Low
Analysis of "An Overheated Climate Alarm"
“Lomborg is using scientific ‘language’ to suggest that climate change will have insignificant health impacts; this goes against a vast body of evidence. The notion that benefits from warmer winters could be more important than risks from hotter summer in terms of human health is plain wrong.”
-
-1.8Very low
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”.”
-
-1.5Very low
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“This article peddles the usual false statements masquerading as opinion that we have been seeing for years, and would not be published by a reputable publisher.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.”
-
-1.6Very low
Analysis of "The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism"
“Tries and fails to make a convincing case for why humans need to worry about climate change less than they currently do.”
