Latest in
Climate
-
Inaccurate
-
1.7Very high
ABC article effectively illustrates important climate trends for Australian readers
“This article is exceptionally good in delivering accurate information in an engaging way. There are many useful statements made about the effects of climate change on extreme weather globally and in Australia and these have been backed up by links to relevant peer-reviewed literature.”
-
-2Very low
Ian Plimer op-ed in The Australian again presents long list of false claims about climate
“This article is a mixture of misdirection, misleading claims, and outright falsehoods. The author attempts to paint a picture of current climate change as simply a continuation of natural changes that have occurred in the past. But this neglects the clear evidence that climate change over the last two centuries has been shown to be largely man-made, that it is much more rapid that anything we have seen in the last two thousand years if not longer, and that it is occurring in the context of a globe with more than 7 billion human inhabitants.”
-
Inaccurate
-
-0.8Low
New York Times op-ed claiming scientists underestimated climate change lacks supporting evidence
“Most of the specific facts and statistics in this op-ed are correct, but the overall effect is significantly misleading. The author’s central point is that scientists have been drastically underestimating the scope and the pace of climate change until just the past decade or so, and recent events such as permafrost melting, ice cap loss, and extreme weather events have caught them by surprise. This is simply not true.”
-
Incorrect
-
Inaccurate
-
Misleading
-
Inaccurate
-
-1.7Very low
Telegraph article on climate change mixes accurate and unsupported, inaccurate claims, misleads with false balance
“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.”