BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Overconfidence Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 33.8% saturation with 264 hits. Analysis detected 2,434 faulty-reasoning hits from 781 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.7% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,928 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.20% of the article peer group.

This week, a brutal heat wave is shattering heat records in Europe. 
It’s but it’s worth recalling however that last summer the same thing happened in Asia: China, Japan, and Korea suffered their hottest summers on record in 2025, the World Meteorological Organization noted in a new report. 
Now it’s France’s turn. 
And maybe Belgium, Spain, and Britain’s as well. 
As global warming driven mainly by burning fossil fuels continues to intensify, scientists say that record breaking heat will become increasingly frequent throughout the world. 
Temperatures in France this week have been the hottest ever recorded, exceeding 44 degrees Celsius (112 degrees Fahrenheit) on June 23. 
French authorities placed more than half the country on “red alert” and warned that the extreme heat would continue for days to come, Agence France-Presse reported. 
The Guardian quoted the French health minister explaining that “many people are going to suffer, because bodies suffer from an accumulation of high temperatures.” 
In the first of what will surely be more death reports, The Guardian shared the especially tragic news that “two children aged two and four have been found dead in their family’s car in south-eastern France.” 
The intensity, scope, and projected duration of this extreme heat has drawn comparisons to the catastrophic heat wave that scorched Europe in 2003. 
That heat wave is a landmark event in the history of human-caused climate change for two reasons. 
First, it was the first extreme weather event that scientists authoritatively attributed to climate change; a team of British scientists published a study concluding that global warming was responsible for 45 percent of the excessive heat that punished Europe that summer. 
Second, the 2003 heat wave was global warming’s first mass casualty event: It killed a staggering 71,000 people in six weeks, considerably more than the number of US war deaths throughout all the years of the Vietnam War. 
(Initial reports estimated that 15,000 people died, a figure sometimes still repeated today, but subsequent epidemiological analysis concluded that the actual death toll was nearly five times higher.) 
The current heat wave need not injure or kill that many people, and civic-minded journalism can help limit the suffering—by alerting the public to impending extreme weather and sharing tips for how to be safe, such as staying hydrated and checking on elderly neighbors. 
Much will also depend on the effectiveness of government policies and social infrastructure. 
Are authorities issuing clear weather alerts that reach everyone in harms’ way, including people living on the streets and speakers of non-native languages? 
Are there enough cooling stations where people who lack air conditioning can find temporary relief? 
Aware of these challenges since 2003, France and neighboring countries have implemented countermeasures; the current heat wave will test how well they perform under pressure. 
The best news coverage of the June 2026 European heat wave has balanced how extreme heat impacts people’s daily lives with the larger scientific and social context: the fact that this kind of heat is exactly what scientists have long said would happen if humans continued burning fossil fuels, destroying forests, and otherwise pumping planet-warming gases into the atmosphere. 
In AFP’s June 22 story, headlined “Europe sweats through new heat wave, with worse to come,” the third paragraph plainly states. 
“Scientists have shown that recurring heat waves are a clear marker of global warming, primarily caused by burning coal, oil and gas—and warn they are set to become more frequent, longer, and more intense.” 
But as with other recent extreme weather disasters, much of the coverage has omitted the climate connection. 
In 2026, given the advanced state of climate attribution science, that is simply not journalistically defensible. 
As my colleague Kyle Pope and I wrote in January 2025 after most coverage ignored the climate connection to the mega-fires that engulfed Los Angeles, “When a house is on fire, by all means let journalism show us the flames. 
But tell us why the house is burning, too.” 
Unfortunately, there will be lots of opportunities to get this story right. 
The summer of 2026 is only just beginning and a Super El Niño promises to further supercharge temperatures across much of the planet in the coming months, with North America due to swelter next week. 
And as hot as 2026 is in Europe and 2025 was in Asia, in the future these will be seen as some of the coolest years in people’s lifetimes. 
The science is unequivocal: Until fossil fuels are phased out, global temperatures will keep going up and up and up. 
Though not much discussed these days, what our civilization decides to do about that is among the most consequential questions of our time. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 23.8%Mark Hertsgaard: 6.6%The Nation: 5.4%Confirmation Bias23.8%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 1.3%The Nation: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Mark Hertsgaard: 3.4%The Nation: 2.9%Availability Heuristic15.9%This article: 2.9%Mark Hertsgaard: 2.2%The Nation: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic2.9%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.3%The Nation: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 21.9%Mark Hertsgaard: 3.4%The Nation: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias21.9%This article: 11.8%Mark Hertsgaard: 5.7%The Nation: 6.9%Framing Effect11.8%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.1%The Nation: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.2%The Nation: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.3%The Nation: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect5.1%This article: 6.7%Mark Hertsgaard: 2.0%The Nation: 2.0%Optimism Bias6.7%This article: 12.7%Mark Hertsgaard: 2.9%The Nation: 1.8%Pessimism Bias12.7%This article: 21.1%Mark Hertsgaard: 6.9%The Nation: 11.0%Negativity Bias21.1%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.1%The Nation: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Mark Hertsgaard: 1.1%The Nation: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error1.7%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.0%The Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.6%The Nation: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.0%The Nation: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Mark Hertsgaard: 1.2%The Nation: 1.8%Halo Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.0%The Nation: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.0%The Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 19.8%Mark Hertsgaard: 2.2%The Nation: 1.0%Recency Bias19.8%This article: 5.6%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.5%The Nation: 0.6%Primacy Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.0%The Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.6%The Nation: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 1.2%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.1%The Nation: 1.2%Straw Man1.2%This article: 27.4%Mark Hertsgaard: 9.0%The Nation: 3.4%Appeal to Authority27.4%This article: 3.1%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.7%The Nation: 2.4%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 9.2%Mark Hertsgaard: 1.8%The Nation: 1.7%Slippery Slope9.2%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.0%The Nation: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.8%Mark Hertsgaard: 3.2%The Nation: 8.6%Hasty Generalization7.8%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.0%The Nation: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.2%The Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.5%Mark Hertsgaard: 5.1%The Nation: 7.5%Appeal to Emotion12.5%This article: 4.6%Mark Hertsgaard: 1.5%The Nation: 1.4%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 7.4%Mark Hertsgaard: 1.7%The Nation: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.4%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.0%The Nation: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.8%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.6%The Nation: 0.5%Burden of Proof7.8%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.1%The Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.4%The Nation: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.1%Mark Hertsgaard: 2.2%The Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal5.1%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.1%The Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.9%Mark Hertsgaard: 1.0%The Nation: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.9%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.0%The Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.0%The Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.2%The Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.4%The Nation: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.3%The Nation: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.4%Mark Hertsgaard: 1.3%The Nation: 1.6%Unattributed Quote7.4%This article: 2.7%Mark Hertsgaard: 1.3%The Nation: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.7%This article: 33.8%Mark Hertsgaard: 5.5%The Nation: 16.5%Biased Writer Voice33.8%This article: 17.5%Mark Hertsgaard: 5.3%The Nation: 4.4%Indoctrination17.5%This article: 2.6%Mark Hertsgaard: 3.9%The Nation: 9.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.3%The Nation: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Hertsgaard: 0.0%The Nation: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

781 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers23%attributed speech604writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWorld Meteorological Organization • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageAgence France-Presse • 26 words • 0.0% coverageThe Guardian • 24 words • 100.0% coverageThe Guardian • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 59 words • 100.0% coverageAgence France-Presse • 21 words • 100.0% coverageAgence France-Presse • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Guardian

100%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words34% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice+22.3 ptsWriter: 37.7%The Guardian: 60.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote+40.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%The Guardian: 40.0%40.0%Indoctrination-22.7 ptsWriter: 22.7%The Guardian: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%The Guardian: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.