It's Not Just You: The Sky Is Yellow and the World Is Burning—Here's Why 52%

By Jackie Appel75%

6/7/2023, 12:05:15 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Availability Heuristic, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 26.9% saturation with 206 hits. Analysis detected 1,439 faulty-reasoning hits from 767 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51% and a BS Rank of 52% (10,663 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.30% of the article peer group.

Regions of the northeastern U.S. have been experiencing extremely poor air quality since Tuesday afternoon due to thick smoke that hitched a ride on a low-pressure front down from Canada, where wildfires have been raging for weeks. 
Due to the ever-increasing effects of climate change, wildfires and fire seasons are becoming worse globally, and are unlikely to improve anytime soon. 
If you’re in the areas affected by the smoke, experts suggest trying to stay indoors as much as possible, and wearing a mask when you do go outside. 
I woke up this morning to a warning on my phone’s weather app that the U.S. 
Air Quality Index rated the air quality of the town I live in as “unhealthy.” 
It was purple, a step above red. 
This can’t be right, I thought. 
I don’t live out west anymore. 
We don’t have a fire season here. 
There can’t be THAT much smoke. 
But looking outside, the sky was a sickly grey. 
I hopped on TikTok and saw several people from the western U.S. doling out tips about how to protect yourself from air pollution if you have to go outside. 
I turned my air purifier on before I left for work, and reminded my partner not to open the windows. 
By now, you’ve probably seen the photos of a thick haze blanketing New York City; it’s currently serving as the poster child for the city with the worst air quality in the U.S. at the moment, ranking only behind Delhi, India, globally. 
The smoke is expected to hang around for a few days before being pushed out and away by changing winds. 
So, what exactly is turning our skies into pea soup? 
Unfortunately, it’s nothing good. 
The smoke billowing across the region is the result of recent wildfires that have been raging across parts of Canada. 
Right now, everything on the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Center website is accessible except the current wildfire report, but the Washington Post reported this morning that there are “416 active fires, 240 of which the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Center lists as ‘out of control.’” 
The fires are the result of a season of heat and drought, lightning, and human activity. 
Add to that a low-pressure system—a region of low pressure in the atmosphere that causes large swaths of air to sweep in the same direction—sweeping from Canada down into New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and you not only get out-of-control fire, but widespread, dangerous smoke. 
Experts are advising that people in the affected areas limit their outdoor exposure as much as possible, and if they have to go outside, they should consider wearing some kind of mask or respirator like an N95. 
We’re getting “do not exercise outdoors” warnings, and the Air Quality Index listed New York City at a rating of over 200 this morning. 
The index goes from 0–500, with numbers being worse the higher they go, and categories ranging from green (“good”) to maroon (“hazardous”). 
This morning, New York hit purple (“very unhealthy”), and it’s now well into maroon. 
This kind of “weather” may be new to the East Coast, but other parts of the country are no stranger to smoke. 
Californians, for example, have been dealing with these kinds of air quality issues for years. 
Kevin Yamamura, who lives in San Francisco, wrote a short piece published in The New York Times this morning that began: “Some New Yorkers were out running this morning under orange skies, and all I could think was, why didn’t they check their air quality apps?” 
Due to the ever-increasing severity of climate change—causing increased heat and widespread drought—dry weather and subsequent fires are not likely to diminish anytime soon. 
In fact, the United Nations released a report in February 2022 claiming that we are in a “global wildfire crisis,” underlining the fact that wildfires are increasing in frequency and severity, fire seasons are getting worse, and that fire risk worldwide could increase by 57 percent by the end of the century. 
As I’m wrapping this piece up, the light outside my office window has turned amber as the sun has continued to try to pierce through increasingly dense smoke. 
I can look right at it without hurting my eyes if I go outside. 
Some people are coughing and experiencing burning eyes. 
I would love to think that this is the last time I will look up and see a yellow sky, but I’m fairly certain that won’t be the case. 
This article was originally published 6/7/23. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.8%Jackie Appel: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 4.4%Confirmation Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%Jackie Appel: 10.6%Popular Mechanics: 3.1%Availability Heuristic15.4%This article: 0.8%Jackie Appel: 0.9%Popular Mechanics: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.8%This article: 3.8%Jackie Appel: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 1.8%Hindsight Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Jackie Appel: 1.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.6%Framing Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.9%Jackie Appel: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Jackie Appel: 10.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Pessimism Bias10.4%This article: 12.5%Jackie Appel: 11.4%Popular Mechanics: 5.3%Negativity Bias12.5%This article: 0.8%Jackie Appel: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 1.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Jackie Appel: 2.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.7%Jackie Appel: 4.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Recency Bias8.7%This article: 8.0%Jackie Appel: 2.7%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Primacy Effect8.0%This article: 0.8%Jackie Appel: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.9%Jackie Appel: 11.2%Popular Mechanics: 5.5%Appeal to Authority26.9%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.7%Jackie Appel: 7.1%Popular Mechanics: 4.2%Hasty Generalization3.7%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.5%Jackie Appel: 1.8%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Bandwagon5.5%This article: 7.3%Jackie Appel: 3.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion7.3%This article: 3.1%Jackie Appel: 1.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Begging the Question3.1%This article: 10.8%Jackie Appel: 3.6%Popular Mechanics: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.8%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.0%Jackie Appel: 2.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Composition/Division6.0%This article: 15.6%Jackie Appel: 5.2%Popular Mechanics: 2.6%Anecdotal15.6%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.4%Jackie Appel: 3.5%Popular Mechanics: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.4%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.6%Jackie Appel: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity1.6%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.9%Jackie Appel: 2.0%Popular Mechanics: 1.4%Unattributed Quote5.9%This article: 6.0%Jackie Appel: 4.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection6.0%This article: 12.3%Jackie Appel: 5.3%Popular Mechanics: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice12.3%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Appel: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

767 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers19%attributed speech624writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWashington Post • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Yamamura • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageUnited Nations • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kevin Yamamura

100%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words32% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kevin Yamamura: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.1 ptsWriter: 15.1%Kevin Yamamura: 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.