34 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2019
  2. Feb 2019
  3. Dec 2018
  4. Sep 2018
    1. Hurricane Florence is not climate change or global warming. It's just the weather.

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  5. Aug 2018
  6. May 2018
    1. The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  7. Apr 2018
    1. A Startling New Discovery Could Destroy All Those Global Warming Doomsday Forecasts

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  8. Dec 2017
  9. Nov 2017
    1. Climate change might be worse than thought after scientists find major mistake in water temperature readings

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  10. Oct 2017
  11. Jun 2017
  12. May 2017
  13. Mar 2017
    1. Earth heading for 'mini ice age' within 15 years

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to the 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  14. Feb 2017
    1. Scientists: Here's What Really Causes Climate Change (And It Has Nothing To Do With Human Beings)

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to 4 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

    1. The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' to 'low', according to 7 climate scientists who evaluated this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and on ClimateFeedback.org

      This evaluation features contributions by MIT Prof. Kerry Emanuel (see annotations below) and by Wesleyan University Prof. Gary Yohe (see his comments on the article)

      karmour:

      The article contains numerous scientific errors, does not provide references for some of its key claims, and ignores much of the published literature on the subjects discussed. It appears that many details have been cherry-picked or misconstrued in service of making a political point.

      anonymous reviewer:

      The author tries to rebut the narrative "that the world’s climate is changing from bad to worse". In doing so, he erects a straw-man, cherry-picks studies and misrepresents current climate science. Furthermore, the logic that since things are not 'worst-than-we-thought', we shouldn't take action and do the things we would do if things were simply 'bad', is lost on me…

      emvincent:

      The article is imprecise, for instance, about who the “doomsayers” and the “alarmists” are: since the core of the argumentation is about them, a definition of who they are and what they argue exactly cannot be avoided. It is also vague in its conclusion: “we need balance”, here again what exactly is meant by balance should be made clearer.

      jgdwyer:

      Tries and fails to make a convincing case for why humans need to worry about climate change less than they currently do.

      bmv:

      Although this author appears to have read parts of the IPCC report and carefully selected the facts which support his narrative, he presents information in a very misleading way, and some of his statements (e.g. "despite endless successions of climate summits, carbon emissions continue to rise") do not support his thesis that action on climate change is alarmist and unnecessary. His conclusion that "climate change is not worse than we thought. Some indicators are worse, but some are better" suggests a false equivalency between the indicators that are "worse" and those that are "better".

      drchavas:

      The author on multiple occasions presents blatantly inaccurate information and otherwise uses selective information to argue his point, which is highly misleading.

  15. Dec 2016
    1. Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 7 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  16. Nov 2016
    1. The Phony War Against CO2

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

    1. About Those Non-Disappearing Pacific Islands

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to 12 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  17. Oct 2016
    1. James Lovelock: ‘Before the end of this century, robots will have taken over’

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to 5 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  18. Jul 2016
  19. Jan 2016
    1. The Climate Snow Job

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' to 'low', according to 10 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  20. Dec 2015
    1. Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' to 'low', according to 12 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  21. Nov 2015
  22. Oct 2015
    1. The vested interests at play mean the evidence we see from the research community isn’t always objective. So instead of allowing “experts” to determine the best course of action, why not ask the public? We could demand independent, objective evidence

      Underplays the vast independent scientific research literature that is already out there.

  23. Sep 2015
    1. Wake up, Obama, climate change has been happening forever

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 9 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  24. Aug 2015
    1. How Arctic ice has made fools of all those poor warmists

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to the 8 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis