Reviews of content from
The Guardian
-
Inaccurate
-
-1Low
Guardian article on Arctic methane emissions claiming “a new climate feedback loop may have been triggered” lacks important context
“This article’s claim that methane deposits in the Arctic Ocean are starting to be released, awakening a “sleeping giant”, cannot be supported by the limited observational data. Besides, even if these newly found seeps are increasing, they are located too deep in the ocean to have a significant impact on the concentration of methane in the atmosphere.”
-
Imprecise
-
-1Low
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.”
-
0.2Neutral
Guardian story on climate impacts of diet gets mixed reviews from scientists
“The word “Avoiding” in title and text is overly strong and should have been “Reducing”. Adopting a vegan diet is not necessary, but a reduction to having meat 1-2 times a week and dairy 3-4 times a week would suffice. In fact, flexitarian diets utilize natural resources much more efficiently than vegan diets[1]. In the article, Peter Alexander is quoted saying something to the same effect.”
-
1.5Very high
Guardian story accurately describes study on environmental impacts of our food system
“Although the presented facts are clear, the scientists give a personal interpretation of the priorities and needed policies, which are not covered in the source. The data give added value, but are in line with earlier studies.”
-
0.7High
Guardian story conveys statement by scientists stressing role of deforestation in climate change
“The article correctly links estimates of current carbon dioxide emissions from land use and land cover change with fairly conservative estimates for potential carbon sequestration embedded in “natural climate solutions” as part of the climate mitigation strategy to avoid 1.5°C warming.
Land-use and land-cover change is responsible for roughly 10-15% of total global carbon dioxide emissions. Forest management, reforestation, and afforestation where appropriate, is part of the climate mitigation portfolio assessed by Integrated Assessment Models used in the IPCC process.” -
1.3High
Guardian story accurately covers sea ice event but makes unsupported connection to weather patterns and the Gulf Stream
“The article is clear and accurate. The authors have consulted several experts in the field to develop this story. They provide a scientifically sound overview of the current sea ice state north of Greenland, its historical context, and what has caused this anomaly.”
-
1High
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.”
-
0.5High
Guardian explores sea level rise impact on cities, but fails to make timescale clear
“This article provides an excellent visual of an unfortunately very likely general future for humanity, in which sea level rise slowly inundates many coastal cities … However, one major drawback of this article is that the magnitude and timescale of the sea level rises described in this report are not well explained.”