Topics:
“Our nitrogen study does not detract from the urgency of the climate problem, nor the unequivocal evidence of the role of carbon pollution in causing global climate change. The climate threat is clear and present and we must solve it rapidly by reducing emissions and capturing existing CO2 from the atmosphere.”
Claim:
There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase.
The article accurately described a study indicating that more of the carbon released from thawing permafrost will be released as methane and provided context on its overall implications by quoting comments from two other researchers. The article’s headline, however, may mislead readers through the use of the sensational phrase “the Arctic’s carbon bomb”, which calls to mind a catastrophic, explosive release of greenhouse gas.
In many of these conversations, the question is framed in a fairly reductionist way: “Did global warming cause the California fires?” A more nuanced and scientifically-answerable question might be: “Has global warming increased the likelihood or severity of large late-season wildfires in California?”
“The article is composed of misstatements. These are either based upon the author’s apparent lack of understanding of the ecological and geophysical situations, or intent to mislead readers.”
Claim:
NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.
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.
“The article contains valid information on the devastating consequences of climate change on polar bears. The only problem as I see it is that the article presents (implicitly) that the polar bear in the video is dying as a consequence of climate change and from not finding enough food due to lack of sea ice…”
“The article explains the issue (meat production diverts crops from humans to cattle) on a simple level. More explanation and more context could have been provided, I think, regarding individual-level and sectoral sources of greenhouse emissions.”
“The article handles a complex topic well. It would be easy to be alarmist with this subject matter, and while its lede edges that way, the main content of the article is very balanced. It also presents a lot of interesting information in a compelling manner.”