28 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Feb 2019
  3. Aug 2018
  4. Jun 2018
    1. Ross McKitrick: All those warming-climate predictions suddenly have a big, new problem

      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

  5. Mar 2018
    1. Polar bears keep thriving even as global warming alarmists keep pretending they’re dying

      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

  6. Jan 2018
    1. Global Warming Study Canceled After Humiliating Discovery

      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

  7. Dec 2017
    1. STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years

      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

  8. Sep 2017
    1. Climate Scientists: Climate Models Have Overestimated Global Warming

      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

  9. Jun 2017
  10. May 2017
  11. Apr 2017
    1. This section of the website gives you a straightforward introduction to the kinds of evidence that exist for homeopathy and the range of conditions with positive evidence.

      This is what is referred to as cherry picking.

  12. Feb 2017
    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.

  13. Jan 2017
    1. Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmism

      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

  14. 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

  15. Sep 2016
    1. Climate Exaggeration is Backfiring

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

      evaluation card

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

  16. Jul 2016
  17. Mar 2016
  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. Nov 2015
  21. Aug 2015
    1. Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years

      This completely ignores other factors that contribute to and accumulate heat such as the ocean. Looking at the complete picture we see that there really was no hiatus after all.

    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

  22. Sep 2014