New Landmark National Academies Report Affirms the Science Behind Holding Polluters Accountable for the Climate Crisis ⁠96%

By Newswire editor⁠94%

7/16/2026, 11:59:51 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Indoctrination, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 51.4% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 711 faulty-reasoning hits from 173 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 93.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠96% (932 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 95.70% of the article peer group.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) today published an authoritative report, Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and Their Impacts, that validates the science connecting individual weather disasters and their lethal societal impacts directly to human-caused fossil fuel pollution. 
In response, Stephanie Brancaforte, climate accountability campaign director with Public Citizen’s Climate Program, issued the following statement: 
“For decades, Big Oil knowingly poisoned our atmosphere and deceived the public about the impacts of burning fossil fuels —all the while lining executives’ pockets as communities continue to suffer from extreme heat, floods and fires. 
“The science is clear: the extreme heat killing thousands of people in the northern hemisphere this summer is neither an unpredictable event nor an accident—it is the result of corporate crime. 
With the backing of the National Academies, survivors of climate catastrophes now have strong evidence to pursue justice against fossil fuel polluters to pay for the devastation they have unleashed.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 42.2%Newswire editor: 9.4%Common Dreams: 7.9%Confirmation Bias42.2%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.4%Common Dreams: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 6.2%Common Dreams: 5.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%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: 17.9%Newswire editor: 1.6%Common Dreams: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias17.9%This article: 9.2%Newswire editor: 20.1%Common Dreams: 17.4%Framing Effect9.2%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: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.9%Newswire editor: 3.1%Common Dreams: 2.8%Pessimism Bias17.9%This article: 20.8%Newswire editor: 22.0%Common Dreams: 20.6%Negativity Bias20.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.9%Common Dreams: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 4.2%Common Dreams: 3.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.5%Common Dreams: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Newswire editor: 1.1%Common Dreams: 1.5%Halo Effect17.3%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: 20.8%Newswire editor: 5.2%Common Dreams: 6.2%Ad Hominem20.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.9%Common Dreams: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 51.4%Newswire editor: 6.7%Common Dreams: 5.6%Appeal to Authority51.4%This article: 17.9%Newswire editor: 3.9%Common Dreams: 3.2%False Dilemma17.9%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 3.6%Common Dreams: 3.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.8%Newswire editor: 10.7%Common Dreams: 8.9%Hasty Generalization20.8%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: 38.7%Newswire editor: 20.8%Common Dreams: 18.9%Appeal to Emotion38.7%This article: 17.9%Newswire editor: 4.7%Common Dreams: 3.7%Begging the Question17.9%This article: 17.3%Newswire editor: 5.4%Common Dreams: 4.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.3%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.5%Common Dreams: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%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: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.1%Common Dreams: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.8%Newswire editor: 2.9%Common Dreams: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection9.8%This article: 27.2%Newswire editor: 16.1%Common Dreams: 17.2%Biased Writer Voice27.2%This article: 38.7%Newswire editor: 11.9%Common Dreams: 8.6%Indoctrination38.7%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: 24.9%Newswire editor: 1.2%Common Dreams: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…24.9%

173 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker66%attributed speech59writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageStephanie Brancaforte • 17 words • 100.0% coverageStephanie Brancaforte • 36 words • 100.0% coverageStephanie Brancaforte • 31 words • 100.0% coverageStephanie Brancaforte • 30 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Stephanie Brancaforte

100%flagged-word coverage
114 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -72.9 ptsWriter: 72.9%Stephanie Brancaforte: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+58.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Stephanie Brancaforte: 58.8%58.8%Biased Writer Voice+0.1 ptsWriter: 27.1%Stephanie Brancaforte: 27.2%27.2%Quote-first Misdirection+14.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Stephanie Brancaforte: 14.9%14.9%

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.