Misrepresenting Climate Science: Cherry-Picking Data to Hide the Disappearance of Arctic Ice

Climate deniers cannot make a case against human-caused climate change without desperately manipulating, misrepresenting, or simply misunderstanding the science. While there are examples of their bad science (BS) every day, a particularly egregious case has played out in New Mexico in the past week. Full Story »

Posted by Danielle Chazen - via Google News (Science)
Tags Help
Stats Help
# Tweets: 0 (as of 2011-02-07)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Danielle Chazen - Feb 7, 2011 - 6:12 AM PST
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Jon Mitchell - Feb 7, 2011 - 11:44 AM PST

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Anthony Herman
2.6
by Anthony Herman - Feb. 8, 2011

The article seems a little bit childish. Gleick could have done so much more to prove his point - using other sources, getting quotations, proving something instead of saying it - but instead he got hung up on name-calling. I am on the fence about climate change and this article did nothing to swing me to either side of the fence.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Katie Crawford
4.0
by Katie Crawford - Feb. 8, 2011

This article has a lot of supporting facts for both sides of the global warming argument. There are relevant articles linked which adds more depth to the article as well as increases the reliability of the information in the article. It was easy to come away with an informed opinion of the issue without feeling as though one side of the issue was pushed without reason.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Elizabeth Klinck
4.0
by Elizabeth Klinck - Feb. 7, 2011

This article is almost good journalism, but is not quite there. The author, Peter H Gleick, appears credible due to his credentials, but his lack of attribution for his statistical information leaves me a bit weary. Generally, I trust the information he provides, but his arguments would be stronger if he could attribute the source of his statistical data.

See Full Review » (4 answers)
Chris Grady
4.0
by Chris Grady - Feb. 8, 2011

This is a great article because it very thoroughly points out the flaws in the argument that states that global warming is a non-issue. One may be a little skeptical when reading the first few paragraphs, thinking that this is someone who simply just has strong feelings about global warming, but the writer very systematically picks apart the opposing argument in a way that is easy to understand. While the figures that are used are certainly very useful to the reader, the graphs that are used to give a the full story are what makes this a great piece of work.

See Full Review » (4 answers)
Fiona Weeks
4.0
by Fiona Weeks - Feb. 8, 2011

There will always be more than one opinion on an issue, and when people with public trust skew the facts and blatantly lie in order to prove their side of the story, it does nothing to benefit the public. I don't think Gleick is pushing his audience to believe the facts of Climate science (though he gives enough statistics and datas in order to do so), but is calling out the opposing side to stick to the facts, and pushing audiences to be more critical in their acceptance and analyzation of facts presented to them. In that same vein, he's pushing his audience to question what he's presented, pushing them to be active in their news gathering, which is overall exactly what citizens should do.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Matt Ford
4.0
by Matt Ford - Feb. 8, 2011

It is a good opinion piece that feels honest and totally factual. It does, as a disclaimer, validate my opinion about climate change, but the story is factual and realistic.

See Full Review » (4 answers)
Danielle Chazen
4.0
by Danielle Chazen - Feb. 7, 2011

I really like the way Gleick explained and proved the inaccuracies presented. He broke down the errors individually and concisely and explained each one-- which I found to be an informative technique. I think this article demonstrates that despite someone's title and experience (Schmitt's) we still must remain skeptical of their claims and truly think about them. Right off the bat, if Schmitt can't spell the word "Arctic" correctly, we should know something is up. I think this article demonstrated how careful we must be in believing what we read, even if it appears to come from a credible source. This article also showed how careless the writer was in his work since after being corrected, he still chose not to make the ... More »

See Full Review » (4 answers)
Ethan Rothstein
4.0
by Ethan Rothstein - Feb. 7, 2011

This isn't just good journalism, it's good argumentation. He starts out by stating his thesis, then he expands his thesis. he shows his audience the other side's points, then their flaws, then clinches the audience's trust and respect by backing it up with his original points and conclusion. Great piece, well sourced with experts, and it outlines a disturbing trend in American political and environmental discourse.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Catlin Nalley
4.0
by Catlin Nalley - Feb. 8, 2011

I believe this article is informative and clearly supports one point of view. The opinion of the author is known from the start and he supports his beliefs with well-documented evidence. The tone of the author is somewhat condescending and in my opinion takes away slightly from the overall article. However, it is well researched and supported.

See Full Review » (3 answers)
Sara Newman
4.0
by Sara Newman - Feb. 10, 2011

I appreciate Gleick's passion for this article, but I think he got a little too personal making this seem like a blog post instead of a news article. I like how he broke down inaccuracies about climate change and explained why they're wrong. That helps someone like me who is not as well-versed in climate vernacular. I also think charts always help scientific articles. I think the constant first-person point of view demeaned his authority.

See Full Review » (4 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.0

Good
from 12 reviews (17% confidence)
Quality
4.0
Information
4.1
Insight
3.8
Style
3.6
Balance
4.0
Context
3.6
Expertise
3.6
Originality
3.8
Relevance
4.2
Responsibility
4.2
Popularity
4.1
Recommendation
3.9
Credibility
4.2
# Reviews
5.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!