Topics:
Latest in
This is an incredibly misleading article. It cherry picks a dataset taking measurements 2 miles up in the atmosphere only over land areas that disagrees with the other two datasets that examine the same values… The author is taking a normal modest cooling at the end of a large El Niño event and spinning it completely out of proportion.
Claim:
El Niño drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions.
“This article is mostly accurate … the frequency of massive bleaching events is increasing, will continue to increase in the near future, and these events do not need to occur annually to kill the reef. The variability of El Niño Southern Oscillation on top of the background warming trend of surface temperatures means that we will exceed the bleaching thresholds more frequently.”
“Well outlined and balanced article, describing the evident link between low sea ice and climate warming and the melt-albedo feedback, but also mentioning the role of weather and short-time variability.”
“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.”
Claim:
Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has helped raise global food production and reduce poverty.
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.”
“Sarah Knapton has written a reasonably well-balanced article, however, this article was placed under a misleading headline. The headline could just as easily have been: “Experts said that simplistic extrapolations of sea ice loss had little predictive value—and they were right.””
“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…”