Experts in those fields know that the critical links, the original animal source and the intermediate species that may have been the direct transmitter to humans, may never be identified; similar inquiries have taken years, and some have never reached a conclusion.
By not acknowledging that the authors discussed at great length the history of such inquiries, Hiltzik leads the reader to believe that the authors excluded this pertitent background information.
Spoiler alert: Near the end of their book, Chan and Ridley acknowledge that they have conducted a wild goose chase. “The reader may want to know what the authors of this book think happened,” they write. “Of course, we do not know for sure. ... We have tried to lay out the evidence and follow it wherever it leads, but it has not led us to a definite conclusion.” After 400-odd pages of argument, learning that the authors don’t even emerge with the courage of their own convictions may leave readers feeling cheated.
Hiltzik is clearly suggesting that readers should feel cheated here. A wild goose chase is a complicated, hopeless pursuit. But the authors never promised they would solve the mystery of the origin of COVID-19. Their thesis, quite clearly from the start, is that an entire broad category of theories --zoonotic origin theories with no virology lab intermediary-- is highly implausible. That is what they argued. In comparison, when a defense lawyer proves their client is innocent of a murder, it is not logical or fair to expect them to go further and prove the guilt of the true murderer, and indeed no justice system in the world demands as much. That being said, the authors of Viral do go further; they argue that the virus or a near ancestor leaked from one of the two Wuhan Virology Institute locations in Wuhan. They also explained why the CCP's (undisputed) withholding of data blocks the investigating process from narrowing in on a detailed narrative of exactly how the leak happened.
we use relative risk reduction instead of absolute risk 00:26:45 reduction and it makes it look like there's a greater effect than there actually is
for - medical deception - communicating relative risk instead of absolute risk is misleading and gives the appearance of a greater effect
Carbon calculators are very misleading.Here’s why:
Moonquakes? Scientists are cracking open the mystery of icy moons
copied from Universe Today, except the title is invented.
Include one or both of these headers in your messages:
Actually, if you include List-Unsubscribe-Post, then you MUST include List-Unsubscribe (both).
According to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8058#section-3.1,
A mail sender that wishes to enable one-click unsubscriptions places one List-Unsubscribe header field and one List-Unsubscribe-Post header field in the message. The List-Unsubscribe header field MUST contain one HTTPS URI. It MAY contain other non-HTTP/S URIs such as MAILTO:. The List-Unsubscribe-Post header MUST contain the single key/value pair "List-Unsubscribe=One-Click".
Can't annotate on https://feedback.mailgun.com/forums/156243-feature-requests/suggestions/39905227-provide-meaningful-delivery-status-description-rat so posting here instead.
Anonymous commented · May 26, 2021 4:36 AM
Without your comment I'd never find the real issue, because I was only look at permanent failures. That error message is really misleading, hope they can fix this.
Kelly commented · December 30, 2020 2:35 AM
Yes we desperately need this too. Half of our recipients were soft bounced due to "Too old" but we could still send to them previously on other ESPs.
suspect evaded Colorado’s red flag gun law
If you read lower in the article you'll see that the headline is a blatant lie.
The Gov failed to prosecute a violent person, so AP spins it as if this guy "evaded" (which is an action).
One can't evade a law that is never applied against them.
However, while URLs allow you to locate a resource, a URI simply identifies a resource. This means that a URI is not necessarily intended as an address to get a resource. It is meant just as an identifier.
However, while URLs allow you to locate a resource, a URI simply identifies a resource.
Very untrue/misleading! It doesn't simply (only) identify it. It includes URLs, so a URI may be a locator, a name, or both!
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986 states it better and perfectly:
A URI can be further classified as a locator, a name, or both. The term "Uniform Resource Locator" (URL) refers to the subset of URIs that, in addition to identifying a resource, provide a means of locating the resource by describing its primary access mechanism (e.g., its network "location").
This means that a URI is not necessarily intended as an address to get a resource. It is meant just as an identifier.
The "is not necessarily" part is correct. The "is meant" part is incorrect; shoudl be "may only be meant as".
Mulot, M., Segalas, C., Leyrat, C., & Besançon, L. (2021). Vaccination rates and COVID-19 cases: A commentary of “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States.” OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/72abp
I'm disappointed because the image for this item is misleading. It has clearly been altered to appear that the balls/marbles that come with the set are larger than they actually are. If you look closely at the picture, you can tell that the balls were digitally edited in to the original image.I have a child who still likes to chew on toys, and only purchased this for him because it appears in the image that the balls are much too large to be a risk for choking. In actuality, they're about the size of marbles and a very high choking risk.Misrepresenting this in the photo is potentially dangerous
Jason Abaluck. (2021, November 1). It is sad. @DrJBhattarcharya is the worst example I have personally seen of someone who was previously a scholar but who now engages in repeated misrepresentation of scientific results to serve a partisan agenda. [Tweet]. @Jabaluck. https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1455312783789240320
I'm concerned that supporting certain parts of the svelte javascript semantics in module scripts—that have so far been restricted to the instance script—could lead users to believe that everything is supported. Supporting store shorthand syntax but not reactive assignments and declarations could be confusing.
could lead users to believe ... - could lead users to believe that everything is supported.
Chawla, D. S. (2021). Hundreds of ‘predatory’ journals indexed on leading scholarly database. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00239-0
Tom Whipple on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved 29 October 2021, from https://twitter.com/whippletom/status/1442226972491333641
Mulot, M., Segalas, C., Leyrat, C., & Besançon, L. (2021). Re: Subramanian and Kumar. Vaccination rates and COVID-19 cases. European Journal of Epidemiology, 36(12), 1243–1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00817-6
ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘RT @CT_Bergstrom: I also dislike the choice of axis scales. I don’t mind line graphs with axes that don’t go to zero (https://t.co/EpPNR9Lx…’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 22 March 2022, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1477181158425251840
Greenland’s Melting Ice Is No Cause for Climate-Change Panic
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Studies show women and people of color tend to be paid less than White men in the same roles.
Refers to pay between workers "in the same roles" but links to an article that uses a gross unadjusted figure. Nothing in the link supports the claim being made, which was hardly surprising considering this claim has been debunked thousands of times over the last few decades.
Nick Mark MD. (2022, January 21). This FLCCC COVID protocol gets nuttier with each version. Now hydroxychloroquine is “preferred for omicron”? What?!🤯 Stuff that actually works (monoclonals & fluvoxamine) are 2nd line And steroids, which increased mortality in people NOT on O2 in RECOVERY, are recommended?😱 https://t.co/XXfn1eMTJt [Tweet]. @nickmmark. https://twitter.com/nickmmark/status/1484382662517137410
The online information environment | Royal Society. (n.d.). Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/online-information-environment/
Should bad science be censored on social media? (2022, January 19). BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60036861
Trisha Greenhalgh. (2021, December 27). This is nothing short of scandalous. Unless and until those leading the public health response acknowledge the AIRBORNE nature of the virus and give transmission mitigation advice commensurate with how airborne viruses spread, we will be yo-yoing from wave to wave ad infinitum. [Tweet]. @trishgreenhalgh. https://twitter.com/trishgreenhalgh/status/1475502337594646528
Antivaccine activists use a government database on side effects to scare the public. (n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 2021, from https://www.science.org/content/article/antivaccine-activists-use-government-database-side-effects-scare-public
Wagner, D. N., Marcon, A. R., & Caulfield, T. (2020). “Immune Boosting” in the time of COVID: Selling immunity on Instagram. Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, 16(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-020-00474-6
Facebook froze as anti-vaccine comments swarmed users. (n.d.). MSN. Retrieved November 12, 2021, from https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/science/facebook-froze-as-anti-vaccine-comments-swarmed-users/ar-AAPY06U
How online misinformation spreads. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2021, from https://knowablemagazine.org/article/society/2021/how-online-misinformation-spreads
Schraer, R., & Morrison, N. (2021, October 12). Covid: Misleading vaccine claims target children and parents. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58783711
Davey, M. (2021, September 24). Fraudulent ivermectin studies open up new battleground between science and misinformation. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/25/fraudulent-ivermectin-studies-open-up-new-battleground-between-science-and-misinformation
Robins-Early, N. (2021, September 24). Desperation, misinformation: How the ivermectin craze spread across the world. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/24/ivermectin-covid-peru-misinformation
Prof. Gavin Yamey MD MPH. (2021, September 28). Bogus, damaging “consent form” being peddled over in the UK. Ugh. The anti-vaccine movement is trying every grotesque tactic under the sun. [Tweet]. @GYamey. https://twitter.com/GYamey/status/1442821619068686338
Yong, E. (2021, October 2). What Even Counts as Science Writing Anymore? The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/10/how-pandemic-changed-science-writing/620271/
Full Fact on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved 20 September 2021, from https://twitter.com/FullFact/status/1439197512741658627
Cut a dado groove with a 3/4” diameter router bit and you’ll almost certainly have a too-loose joint when you try to plug some 3/4” plywood in place. Under the guise of metrification, sheet material thicknesses have all shrank enough to cause problems with joinery if you rely on the old, Imperial thickness designations. And besides, material thickness varies enough from sheet to sheet that it can make a difference when it comes to prominent joinery. This is even true in the USA that still uses Imperial more or less exclusively. Sheet goods remain thinner than their name specifies.
Vaccine inventor questions mandatory shot push, Biden’s Covid-19 strategy
Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis
How to trash confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine: Brexit edition—Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (n.d.). Retrieved August 10, 2021, from https://thebulletin.org/2021/08/how-to-trash-confidence-in-a-covid-19-vaccine-brexit-edition/#.YQwD9u6LazM.twitter
What the World Health Organization really said about mixing COVID-19 vaccines | CBC News. (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2021, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-mixing-and-matching-who-1.6101047?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar
David Dowdy on Twitter: “One term I worry that we (as a public health community) have mis-messaged during the pandemic: ‘herd immunity threshold’ A non-technical thread on why this is not ‘% of the population that needs to be vaccinated for us to return to life as normal while eradicating COVID-19’... Https://t.co/5As4N9YV9N” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2021, from https://twitter.com/davidwdowdy/status/1389791544425828357?s=20
Sarah Kliff on Twitter: “Coronavirus vaccines are free—But 9 percent of Americans say they’re not getting one because they are worried about cost. I see this a lot in my reporting: Patients who don’t seek care because they’re become so accustomed to surprise bills that follow. Https://t.co/gu6oDnlvhB” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2021, from https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/1395032095819542528?s=20
Outdated WHO website guidance spurs vaccine misinformation. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2021, from https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/misleading-information-about-vaccinating-children-is-linked-to-old-who-advice/
Michael Makris on Twitter: “The cumulative incidence of VITT after AZ first vaccination in the UK is continuing to increase with the latest data being 1 in 81,000. However this is rather misleading because VITT is age related with a higher incidence in the young. Https://t.co/CSjshAoRsN” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2021, from https://twitter.com/ProfMakris/status/1395457748721184777?s=20
Influencers say Russia-linked PR agency asked them to disparage Pfizer vaccine | Marketing & PR | The Guardian. (n.d.). Retrieved June 12, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/25/influencers-say-russia-linked-pr-agency-asked-them-to-disparage-pfizer-vaccine?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J., Kurz, T., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2021). A Comparison of Prebunking and Debunking Interventions for Implied versus Explicit Misinformation [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/48zqn
Wadman, M. (2021). Antivaccine activists use a government database on side effects to scare the public. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj6981
Op-Ed: How Not to Message the Public on COVID Vaccines | MedPage Today. (n.d.). Retrieved May 26, 2021, from https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/92704
Oliver, D. (2021). David Oliver: A vision for transparent post-covid government. BMJ, n1123. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1123
There is no climate emergency
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Are We Doomed?
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Actually, I've decided to stop using labels for a while. A "bug" label gives the impression that someone else is going to fix the problem. We don't have enough volunteers for that (new contributors welcome!). I try to help people working on issues, though. I've spent many hours on this one.
that can be played by up to 10 local players - turnwise.
Description just said:
Party mode brings Versus mode and Marathon mode where up to 10 players can play together and compete locally.
Didn't mention whether it was at same time or in sequence. Hmm. Which is it? Video shows at least 2 can play at same time, so...
Adam Finn. ‘There Are Some News Outlets & Politicians Incorrectly Reporting and Criticising Respectively MHRA for Advising against Use of OxAZ in under 30s. Neither MHRA nor EMA Have Done This. JCVI Have Expressed a Preference for Alternative Vaccines for Healthy under 30s in the UK Context’. Tweet. @adamhfinn (blog), 8 April 2021. https://twitter.com/adamhfinn/status/1380031766703058944.
David R Tomlinson 💙. (2021, March 5). Truth. 💙 @FreshAirNHS @theRCN @TheBMA @mancunianmedic @DrLindaDykes @Chakladar_A @KGadhok https://t.co/Ke2C84KuaT https://t.co/C469qvrSoK [Tweet]. @DRTomlinsonEP. https://twitter.com/DRTomlinsonEP/status/1367962251211202566
Don't let the highly rated reviews fool you, this is one of the worst Steam games I've personally bought and played in years (as of writing this I'm closing in on 4000 games in my Steam library).
Darren Dahly. (2020, October 28). Every so often I am reminded that there is an entire universe of people just casually giving out gazillions of wrong answers on researchgate like it’s no big deal, and it’s wild. [Tweet]. @statsepi. https://twitter.com/statsepi/status/1321432106824859651
Darren Dahly. (2019, September 4). It seems appropriate to do a thread on our recent session about the use of Twitter by statisticians. Https://t.co/eFwLDuXnOU [Tweet]. @statsepi. https://twitter.com/statsepi/status/1169313702715281408
We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis
If ActiveModel deals with your nouns, then ActiveInteraction handles your verbs.
It's a good analogy, but I think it's misleading/confusing/unclear/incorrect, because parts of ActiveInteraction are ActiveModel, so I guess ActiveInteraction deals with your nouns too?
Contrary to what it suggests, the "turbo" button was intended to let a computer run slower than the speed for which it had been designed.
I guess they called it that because it would be come across better than calling it a "slow" button!
Study Disputes That Earth Is in a ‘Climate Emergency’
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Earth's climate is 'cyclical' as new study claims an ice age is coming
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Elmas, T., Overdorf, R., Akgül, Ö. F., & Aberer, K. (2020). Misleading Repurposing on Twitter. ArXiv:2010.10600 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.10600
The official Svelte blog, on the contrary, ends up mind tricking the reader by showing only one side of the coin, sometimes through upfront false statements about web technologies and other libs
So while Solid's JSX and might resemble React it by no means works like React and there should be no illusions that a JSX library will just work with Solid. Afterall, there are no JSX libraries, as they all work without JSX, only HyperScript or React ones.
But presenting a library author as a "snake oil" merchant and those who show enthusiasm for that library as fools for falling "hook, line and sinker" for his lies is pretty insulting and not particularly constructive.
from what I've seen the benchmarks you referenced in a previous article to demonstrate the speed of SolidJS show Svelte performing pretty well. From my perspective whether Rich Harris deliberately chose to present benchmarks that especially favoured Svelte is therefore a moot point
Wait what? No runtime. How does that work? Well, obviously JavaScript executes at runtime, so was he saying he doesn't reuse any code? Well as it turns out the message here has changed. I looked and sure enough there was a runtime. Of course there was.
COVID-19 mutation may be evolving to bypass mask-wearing, hand-washing
Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis
Wildfires Will Become Worse Thanks To Decades-Old Liberal Policies, Says Fire Expert Who Predicted Uptick In Blazes
Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Face masks could be giving people Covid-19 immunity, researchers suggest
Overall scientific credibility: 'debated', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis
Kiely, E., McDonald, J., Gore, D., Robertson, L., & Rieder, R. (2020, July 20). FactChecking Trump’s “Fox News Sunday” Interview. FactCheck.Org. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/factchecking-trumps-fox-news-sunday-interview/
I honestly don't know what you find unclear about this question. I think you initially misread. I edited out your title change because it wasn't what I'd intended and it misled others. I edited in two more sections to clarify. The last section makes it as clear as I can: A single question provokes 1 of 3 responses (not necessarily answers). To chose between them I need to understand acceptable scope of both question and answers. Yes this topic is a muddy one, that's why I'm asking! I want others to help me clarify the unclear!
Forbes Censors Award-Winning Environmentalist's Apology Over Three-Decade 'Climate Scare' - So Here It Is
Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare
Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Climate worst-case scenarios may not go far enough, cloud data shows
Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral' to 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is ‘very rare,’ WHO says
Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis
Money is moved from one place to another without a paper trail.
Only in the literal sense. There's still an electronic paper trail, silly.
Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
self-updating (as it’s monitored remotely by our lawyers)
They don't remotely monitor your policy, just the generic clauses within it.
Most Google users will have a preferences cookie called ‘NID’ in their browsers. A browser sends this cookie with requests to Google’s sites. The NID cookie contains a unique ID Google uses to remember your preferences and other information, such as your preferred language (e.g. English), how many search results you wish to have shown per page (e.g. 10 or 20), and whether or not you wish to have Google’s SafeSearch filter turned on.
They seem to claim (or hope that their description will make you think) that ‘NID’ is only used for storing preferences, but if you read further down, you see that it's also used for targeting.
These should be separate cookies since they have separate purposes, and since under GPDR we have to get separate consent for each purpose of cookie.
Don’t buy China’s story: The coronavirus may have leaked from a lab
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis
Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Breakthrough as scientists create a new cowpox-style virus that can kill EVERY type of cancer
Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis
In a sense, the current behavior is the best behavior, because it never works, you will never get the impression that it does in React.
How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong
Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Climate change: fake news or global threat? This is the science RUM.mark( 'content_load_fmp' ); Save
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
A former union boss jailed over receiving a coal exploration licence from his friend, former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald, was an "entrepreneur" who found a "willing buyer" in the disgraced politician, a court has heard.
This is a flawed proposition and both misleading and deceptive in relation to the subject matter, considering its prominence in a court media report of proceedings which largely centre on the propriety or otherwise of an approvals process.
Using a market analogy mischaracterises the process involved in seeking and gaining approval for a proposal based on an innovative occupational health and safety concept.
In this case, the Minister was the appropriate authority under the relevant NSW laws.
And while Mr Maitland could indeed be described as a "entrepreneur", the phrase "willing buyer" taken literally in the context of the process to which he was constrained, could contaminate the reader's perception of the process as transactional or necessitating exchange of funds a conventional buyer and seller relationship.
Based on evidence already tendered in open court, it's already known Mr Maitland sought both legal advice on the applicable process as well as guidance by officials and other representatives with whom he necessarily engaged.
But the concept of finding a "willing buyer", taken literally at it's most extreme, could suggest Mr Maitland was presented with multiple approvals processes and to ultimately reach his goal, engaged in a market force-style comparative assessment of the conditions attached to each of these processes to ultimately decide on which approvals process to pursue.
Plainly, this was not the case. Mr Maitland had sought advice on the process and proceeded accordingly.
The only exception that could exist in relation to the availability of alternative processes could be a situation silimilar to the handling of unsolicited proposals by former Premier Barry O'Farrell over casino licenses which were not constrained by any of the regular transparency-related requirements including community engagement, notification or competitive tender.
Again, this situation does not and could not apply to the process applicable to Mr Maitland's proposal.
The misleading concepts introduced from the outset in this article also represent an aggravating feature of the injustice to which Mr Maitland has been subjected.
To be found criminally culpable in a matter involving actions undertaken in an honest belief they were required in a process for which Mr Maitland both sought advice process and then at no stage was told anything that would suggest his understanding of the process was incorrect, contradicts fundamental principles of natural justice.
2 European Climate Declaration September 26, 2019There is noclimate emergency
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Our atmosphere and oceans can absorb only so much heat before climate change, intensified by various feedback loops, spins completely out of control. The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (maybe a little more, but also maybe a little less).
Biogeophysical feedbacks have different tipping points. Some are in the range of the 2ºC limit, while others would occur at higher temperature anomalies. For example, a critical transition in the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation (AMOC) is not expected beyond 3ºC
The great failure of the climate models
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Ross McKitrick: This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather — so politicians attacked
Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Fetal DNA Contaminants Found in Merck’s MMR Vaccines
Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis
New Report Warns "High Likelihood Of Human Civilization Coming To An End" Within 30 Years
Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
The truth of climate change is revealed at school
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Media Hysteria: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
Climate Science and the Myths of Renewable Energy
Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
World Health Organization Officially Declares Bacon is as Harmful as Cigarettes
Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis
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.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Repeat after me: carbon dioxide is good for us
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Ross McKitrick: All those warming-climate predictions suddenly have a big, new problem
Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Not all scientists agree on cause of Great Barrier Reef damage
Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
A Startling New Discovery Could Destroy All Those Global Warming Doomsday Forecasts
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
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.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Scientists Announce That The Great Barrier Reef is Officially “Terminal”
Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral' to 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Heart-Wrenching Video Shows Starving Polar Bear on Iceless Land
Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Global Warming Study Canceled After Humiliating Discovery
Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Jerry Brown Blames Climate Change for California Fires: ‘The New Normal’
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years
Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
The three-degree world: the cities that will be drowned by global warming
Overall scientific credibility: 'mixed', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
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.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Misguided renewable energy policies will ruin nation
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Climate Scientists: Climate Models Have Overestimated Global Warming
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Climate Change Isn’t the End of the World
Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
The Uninhabitable Earth
Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
DELINGPOLE: ‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
DELINGPOLE: ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
WHO: United States Among Least Polluting Nations on the Planet
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Trump should withdraw from Paris climate pact
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Global Quackery: Earth Has Not Warmed For Past 19 Years, New Study Finds
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 7 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Why are climate-change models so flawed? Because climate science is so incomplete
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 9 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
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.
Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
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.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' to 'low', according to 7 climate scientists who evaluated this article.
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.
Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmism
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
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.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
The Phony War Against CO2
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
About Those Non-Disappearing Pacific Islands
Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to 12 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Hillary Clinton Boards The Climate Crisis Train To Nowhere
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 8 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong
3 scientists have analyzed this article and conclude its title is misleading.
Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis
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.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Climate Exaggeration is Backfiring
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 9 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’
Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to 7 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
forest fires
Technically correct, in that drought due to lack of rainfall is linked to Indonesian forest fires in some El Nino years.[] (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201608_heat/)
The lead sentence for the paragraph implies a link between climate change and the following events, including Indonesian forest fires, which is not established. To the extent climate change might be affecting the frequency and intensity of El Nino events or rainfall patterns during El Nino events, it might then be playing a role, but that is not claimed in this article. For example, Dai (2012)[] (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/abs/nclimate1633.html) documents a decreasing observed precipitation trend in Indonesia, but Trenberth, Dai et al (2014) note that "it is probably not possible to determine reliable decadal and longer-term trends in drought without first accounting for the effects of ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation." [] (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2067.html). Trenberth, Dai et al (2014) also note that drought due to ENSO effects on precipitation may also be exacerbated by the effects of warming on evapotranspiration, which is an area of ongoing study.
No one ever says it, but in many ways global warming will be a good thing
Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to 14 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
7 Things You Need To Know About GMO Salmon
Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Biotech Feedback's analysis
Scientists ‘are exaggerating carbon threat to marine life’
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to 5 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
The Climate Snow Job
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' to 'low', according to 10 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' to 'low', according to 12 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 9 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 12 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Wake up, Obama, climate change has been happening forever
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 9 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Deceptive temperature record claims
Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 7 scientists who analyzed this article.
Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
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.
Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis
Wisconsin GOP Passes Bill Banning Poor People From Buying Shellfish, Potatoes And Ketchup
This headline is inaccurate. The bill prevents SNAP benefits from being used to buy shellfish, but people are still allowed to buy shellfish with non-SNAP money. The bill also prevents people from using more than a third of their SNAP benefits on food that's not on an approved list, but potatoes are on that list, so people can spend all their benefits on potatoes if they want. Ketchup is unapproved, so people can spend only a third of their SNAP benefits on ketchup.