Landmark Science Report Confirms Big Oil’s Fingerprints on Extreme Weather, as Industry Races for Legal Shield ⁠91%

By Newswire Editor⁠94%

7/16/2026, 5:21:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Framing Effect, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 35.5% saturation with 139 hits. Analysis detected 1,243 faulty-reasoning hits from 391 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 84.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (2,114 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.30% of the article peer group.

The National Academies of Sciences released a report today that puts the full weight of the country's most respected scientific institution behind extreme weather attribution science, affirming that the field can reliably connect specific disasters to fossil fuel pollution. 
The three-year review comes as nearly two dozen states and municipalities sue fossil fuel companies for climate damages, while roughly a dozen states advance climate superfund legislation that would force the industry to help pay for climate-related damage. 
Legal experts say the report could significantly strengthen both efforts. 
Fossil fuel companies aren't waiting to find out. 
Congress is weighing legislation , and several states have already passed laws that would shield oil and gas companies from climate liability altogether — including model legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council for other states to adopt. 
In response to the report, the Make Polluters Pay campaign released the following statement. 
Statement from Cassidy DiPaola, Communications Director for the Make Polluters Pay campaign: 
"The National Academies just gave courts, cities, and communities something they've long needed: the full weight of the country's most authoritative scientific body behind attribution science. 
It affirms what researchers and international bodies like the IPCC have long recognized — that we can say, with real confidence, which extreme weather events were made worse by fossil fuel pollution, and how much damage that pollution caused. 
The fossil fuel industry understands exactly what this means. 
That's why they've spent years trying to discredit attribution science as a field, and why they and their allies in Congress and state legislatures are racing right now to pass liability shield laws. 
They can't out-argue hundreds of peer-reviewed studies backed by the country's most respected scientific institution, so instead they're trying to make the law immune to the science. 
They know this research doesn't just describe a hotter world, but draws a line from their products to specific floods, heat waves, and deaths, and from there to who should pay for the damage. 
Attribution science now underpins how cities plan for disaster, how insurers price risk, how public health officials prepare for heat deaths, and how courts weigh accountability. 
The only people with an interest in pretending otherwise are the ones being asked to pay for the damage they caused." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 23.8%Newswire editor: 9.4%Common Dreams: 7.9%Confirmation Bias23.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.4%Common Dreams: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%Newswire editor: 6.2%Common Dreams: 5.0%Availability Heuristic16.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.1%Common Dreams: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.7%Common Dreams: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 35.5%Newswire editor: 1.6%Common Dreams: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias35.5%This article: 23.8%Newswire editor: 20.1%Common Dreams: 17.4%Framing Effect23.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.4%Common Dreams: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.9%Common Dreams: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect8.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 3.1%Common Dreams: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.9%Newswire editor: 22.0%Common Dreams: 20.6%Negativity Bias16.9%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Newswire editor: 2.9%Common Dreams: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error11.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Newswire editor: 4.2%Common Dreams: 3.8%In-Group Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.5%Common Dreams: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 20.2%Newswire editor: 1.1%Common Dreams: 1.5%Halo Effect20.2%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.6%Common Dreams: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%Newswire editor: 5.2%Common Dreams: 6.2%Ad Hominem15.3%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.9%Common Dreams: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 33.2%Newswire editor: 6.7%Common Dreams: 5.6%Appeal to Authority33.2%This article: 12.3%Newswire editor: 3.9%Common Dreams: 3.2%False Dilemma12.3%This article: 8.4%Newswire editor: 3.6%Common Dreams: 3.2%Slippery Slope8.4%This article: 6.9%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Circular Reasoning6.9%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 10.7%Common Dreams: 8.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.6%Common Dreams: 2.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.3%Newswire editor: 20.8%Common Dreams: 18.9%Appeal to Emotion2.3%This article: 5.4%Newswire editor: 4.7%Common Dreams: 3.7%Begging the Question5.4%This article: 17.1%Newswire editor: 5.4%Common Dreams: 4.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.1%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.6%Newswire editor: 1.5%Common Dreams: 1.2%Burden of Proof2.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.6%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.4%Composition/Division6.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.6%Common Dreams: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.7%Newswire editor: 2.1%Common Dreams: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.7%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Personal Incredulity2.0%This article: 2.3%Newswire editor: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.3%Special Pleading2.3%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.5%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.9%Unattributed Quote12.5%This article: 6.6%Newswire editor: 2.9%Common Dreams: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection6.6%This article: 4.1%Newswire editor: 16.1%Common Dreams: 17.2%Biased Writer Voice4.1%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 11.9%Common Dreams: 8.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 19.4%Common Dreams: 17.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.7%Common Dreams: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.2%Common Dreams: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

391 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker58%attributed speech164writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageCassidy DiPaola • 12 words • 0.0% coverageCassidy DiPaola • 26 words • 100.0% coverageCassidy DiPaola • 39 words • 0.0% coverageCassidy DiPaola • 9 words • 0.0% coverageCassidy DiPaola • 33 words • 0.0% coverageCassidy DiPaola • 27 words • 0.0% coverageCassidy DiPaola • 34 words • 0.0% coverageCassidy DiPaola • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCassidy DiPaola • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cassidy DiPaola

95%flagged-word coverage
227 attributed words100% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Unattributed Quote-29.9 ptsWriter: 29.9%Cassidy DiPaola: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+11.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cassidy DiPaola: 11.5%11.5%Biased Writer Voice-9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Cassidy DiPaola: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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