Another secondary summary gives Humanity’s Last Exam: 64.7% vs 53.1%, possibly under different setup/effort/tool conditions.
This is a classic example of cherry-picking data to create a narrative of superiority. By presenting a potentially non-comparable benchmark result right after a definitive one, the author casts doubt on the entire benchmarking exercise, allowing them to pick and choose the numbers that best support the 'Mythos is vastly superior' story while ignoring context.
He felt that the Beards had gonetoo far in making their facts "generally incidental to some conclu-sion that has pre-determined their selection and arrangement." 1
One can easily leave out bits of evidence or cherry pick evidence to arrive at a given a priori conclusion. The truest thinker or historian will use the fullest context of evidence available at the time to arrive at their conclusion.
Naturally, additional evidence and emergent effects as history unfolds may change some of these conclusions over time.
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
How cherry-picking science became the center of the anti-mask movement. (2022, February 14). Gothamist. https://gothamist.com
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
2015 Was Not Even Close To Hottest Year On Record
Overall scientific credibility: 'very 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
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.
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
Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago
Misleading to focus on a 2-years recovery while sea ice extent and volume in the arctic has decreased over the past 35 years.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/19/sorry-arctic-sea-ice-isnt-really-recovering/