Richard Betts
Article in The Guardian misleads readers about sensitivity of climate models by narrowly focusing on single study
“The article correctly reports that the most recent versions of some climate models estimate more warming for a given increase in CO2 concentrations. It is also correct in highlighting that how clouds are represented in these models is the likely reason for these higher estimates. However, it does not report all the science available on this topic and its claims are thus misleading.”
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
Claim:
During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.
Claim that human civilization could end in 30 years is speculative, not supported with evidence
“The report this article is based on describes a scenario which is unlikely, but several aspects of what is included in the report are likely to worsen in coming decades, such as the occurrence of deadly heatwaves. The conclusion of a high likelihood that human civilisation will end is false, although there is a great deal of evidence that there will be many damaging consequences to continued global warming over the coming decades.”
In popular video, Dan Peña falsely claims humans aren't causing climate change
Claim:
Fifty-five thousand years ago the whole world was 2°C warmer than it is today[...] It's all cyclical; [human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are] not a fart in the wind. Sea level rise is not going to happen.
Breitbart article baselessly claims a study of past climate invalidates human-caused climate change
“By the reasoning of this article, if a rock rolled down a hill three million years ago, no human can be responsible for rolling a rock down a hill today. The fallaciousness of this reasoning is astounding.
It is hard to imagine that a well-intentioned person can so profoundly misunderstand the science. Assuming the author is acting in good faith, this article provides evidence that motivated reasoning can produce results that appear delusional to well-informed people.”
The Australian publishes "deeply ill-informed" opinion on climate by Ian Plimer
“This article is an amalgamation of logical fallacies, misleading talking points, and downright factually incorrect statements regarding the physics of the climate system. Every talking point in this article has been debunked many times over and it is astonishing that this was published.”
Guardian coverage of essay on potential of future "hothouse" climate is generally accurate, but misstates some details
“The article reasonably summarizes a new study published in PNAS, which describes the potential of tipping elements to enhance climate warming and the potential for the Earth to transition into a hot-house climate state. The article is careful to point out uncertainties and thus avoids being sensational. However, there are many small errors scattered throughout the article.”
Some extreme weather events are clearly becoming more common, in contrast to Lord Lawson's claim
Claim:
The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is sort of the voice of the consensus, concedes that there has been no increase in extreme weather events.
Lord Lawson falsely claims that global temperatures have declined over last decade
Claim:
according, again, to the official figures—during this past 10 years, if anything, mean global temperature, average world temperature, has slightly declined
2017 is on track to be among the hottest year recorded, scientists are not as surprised as ThinkProgress article suggests
The scientists who have reviewed the article confirm it accurately reports that 2017 is on track to being one of the warmest years on record. Reviewers note this wasn’t as unexpected as the article states, but the fact that 2017 global surface temperature are that high is a clear reminder that global warming has not stopped or slowed down.
Scientists explain what New York Magazine article on “The Uninhabitable Earth” gets wrong
“While it is clear that ongoing warming of the global climate would eventually have very severe consequences, the concept of the Earth becoming uninhabitable within anywhere near the timescales suggested in the article is pure hyperbole. The author has clearly done very extensive research and addresses a number of climate threats that are indeed major issues, but generally the narrative ramps up the threat to go beyond the level that is supported by science.”
New York Times series accurately describes research on Antarctic ice sheets and sea level rise, but highlights uncertain studies
“Generally scientifically sound, but caution should be displayed before basing discussion solely on a single modeling study, especially when it incorporates fundamentally different processes relative to other contemporary models.”
Analysis of "…in many ways global warming will be a good thing"
“This article presents a highly biased view of global warming, only presenting the “positive” aspects of it. As the author is criticizing media doing the opposite (always showing the bad side of climate change) it is a shame the author didn’t present a balanced view here.”