3 ms·

A now-removed post provided a link to the study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9 It was l

A now-removed post provided a link to the study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9 It was likely removed because it used harsh words to criticize the quality of The Guardian. Someone inquired why they are calling Guardian [redacted]. Since the top comment disappearing also hid my response, here it is, because I agree that the Guardian is [redacted]: --- Especially on climate, it's known for alarmist articles. Search their site for other headlines on an ice-free arctic and I bet you'll find similar doom predictions going back a long time with dates that are now in the past. A random example I found: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-warming-temp-rise-population https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-w... The headline suggests half of the world will become uninhabitable. The text then reveals that it will happen "if the average global temperature rises by 7C on pre-industrial levels" and claims that the IPCC says "average temperatures could rise by 6C this century". Which isn't technically lying because they say "could", but it's the upper end of the error bars of the worst-case scenario, and as such, it doesn't support the "will" in the headline. --- Edit: and since I don't want this to be just my opinion, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ rates their "Factual Reporting" as "MIXED", same as Fox News or the German "BILD".

erehweb 3y ago
The link is https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-warming-temp-rise-population https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-w... - will see if that breaks. An error by a headline drafter is bad, but I'm not sure it proves the point you want to make.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
  Thanks, fixed the link. I don't think it's an error, the alarmism is too consistent for that and as I said, the article text is misleading even when it isn't outright lying. This is just one random example I found, but it's a pattern I've noticed specifically with the Guardian's reporting on climate. I believe the Guardian likes reporting what its readers want to hear, with facts often taking a backseat to that.
gryzzly 3y ago
[flagged]
hannob 3y ago
> Especially on climate, it's known for alarmist articles. Search their site for other headlines on an ice-free arctic and I bet you'll find similar doom predictions going back a long time with dates that are now in the past. > A random example I found: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-w https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-w... Now if anyone gets a wrong impression here: I checked the linked article. It does not talk about an ice-free arctic. It doesn't even mention the word "arctic". It also does not make any predictions for a date that is now in the past. It essentially explains that extreme temperature increases would make parts of the world uninhabitable due to the wet bulb temperature. Which is, well, not particularly controversial, as it is a fact that can be derived from very basic physics, and was as true in 2009 as it is today.
- throw310822 3y ago
  ‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ (2016) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/21/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/21/arctic-w... Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist (2013) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/24/arctic-ice-free-methane-economy-catastrophe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/j... Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years (2012) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-c...
pillefitz 3y ago
We have good reasons to be concerned when looking at the sudden rise in ocean temperatures seen since early 2023 that closely track the worst-case scenarios. Given the stakes, I prefer to be overly cautious (aka. alarmist). On the topic of possible inaccurate climate models used in IPCC reports https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4?si=qEIMzCg-oI4y8pbo https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4?si=qEIMzCg-oI4y8pbo

erehweb 3y ago

The link is https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-warming-temp-rise-population https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-w... - will see if that breaks. An error by a headline drafter is bad, but I'm not sure it proves the point you want to make.

tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
Thanks, fixed the link. I don't think it's an error, the alarmism is too consistent for that and as I said, the article text is misleading even when it isn't outright lying. This is just one random example I found, but it's a pattern I've noticed specifically with the Guardian's reporting on climate. I believe the Guardian likes reporting what its readers want to hear, with facts often taking a backseat to that.

gryzzly 3y ago

[flagged]

hannob 3y ago

> Especially on climate, it's known for alarmist articles. Search their site for other headlines on an ice-free arctic and I bet you'll find similar doom predictions going back a long time with dates that are now in the past. > A random example I found: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-w https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-w... Now if anyone gets a wrong impression here: I checked the linked article. It does not talk about an ice-free arctic. It doesn't even mention the word "arctic". It also does not make any predictions for a date that is now in the past. It essentially explains that extreme temperature increases would make parts of the world uninhabitable due to the wet bulb temperature. Which is, well, not particularly controversial, as it is a fact that can be derived from very basic physics, and was as true in 2009 as it is today.

throw310822 3y ago
‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ (2016) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/21/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/21/arctic-w... Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist (2013) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/24/arctic-ice-free-methane-economy-catastrophe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/j... Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years (2012) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-c...

pillefitz 3y ago

We have good reasons to be concerned when looking at the sudden rise in ocean temperatures seen since early 2023 that closely track the worst-case scenarios. Given the stakes, I prefer to be overly cautious (aka. alarmist). On the topic of possible inaccurate climate models used in IPCC reports https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4?si=qEIMzCg-oI4y8pbo https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4?si=qEIMzCg-oI4y8pbo