
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.”
Articles tagged with
Claim:
“The 58 year net gain of global temperature is zero. We are simply in a cyclical, normal ebb and flow of temperature.”
Claim:
“It’s a good thing that we are putting some more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The scientific method has not been applied in such a way as to prove that carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm.”
Claim:
Greenhouse gases emitted into the ocean are causing more holes in the ozone layer … “the ozone layer has holes in it causing global temperature to rise”
This video discussing climate change was first published on PragerU’s website in April 2016 and recently posted on Facebook in May 2020. Scientists that evaluated the video found several claims about climate change to be incorrect and misleading to viewers.
The article in Business Insider discusses findings from a study published May, 2020 that projected one to three billion people could live in much warmer climates by 2070, assuming migration is limited and greenhouse gas emissions remain high. The Business Insider article accurately describes the study’s projected changes in mean annual temperatures around the globe, however, the study does not describe these increased temperatures as “unbearable” or “unlivable,” as claimed in the article.
Claim:
Global warming slowing down? 'Ironic' study finds more CO<sub>2</sub> has slightly cooled the planet
Claim:
They tell us that we are the primary forces controlling earth temperatures by the burning of fossil fuels and releasing their carbon dioxide. I hope my readers can recognize the absurdity of their claims. … increasing sunspots are linked to increases in earth temperature
Claim:
Historical data of temperature in the U.S. destroys global warming myth
Claim:
Of course the climate is changing. It always has. It always will.
“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.”