Forbes46%

These Fires And Heat Waves Show Why They Call It Global Warming 72%

By Adam Frank0%

7/17/2026, 5:43:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Indoctrination, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 26.3% saturation with 113 hits. Analysis detected 960 faulty-reasoning hits from 429 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.4% and a BS Rank of 72% (6,185 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.70% of the article peer group.

In 1986, long before most people had ever heard of global warming or climate change, I went into the office of my new boss at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and asked her what we were doing. 
I’d been hired as junior scientific programmer a couple of weeks before. 
Now I had a basic handle on things and I wanted to know what kind of science were we doing. 
‘We think the planet might be heating up" she said “We’re looking for the signal that it’s happening”. 
Then she explained what the future would look like if they found that signal, if the Earth really was getting warming because of fossil fuels. 
Afterwards, I had to go out for long a walk to calm down. 
That was 40 years ago. 
It turns out that, pretty much, everything she described that afternoon has come to pass. 
Now, as the Europe and the US undergo one punishing “heat dome” after another and uncontrollable forest fires make the air unhealthy for much of the Northeast, its a good moment to pause and reflect on what’s happening. 
Four decades ago science had already identified the possibility that the large scale use of fossil fuels might trap enough solar energy to begin shifting the Earth’s climate state. 
That’s why some people called it Climate Change. 
All that heat, trapped by new Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere would, on average, increase the planet’s temperature. 
That’s why other people called it Global Warming. 
The predicted effects of these changes included… you guessed it  extended heat domes and increased forest fires. 
So we knew this was going to happen. 
We’ve known for a long time. 
What we didn’t know was what it would feel like. 
That’s the big difference now. 
For years, global warming was an uptick on a graph, an abstraction. 
Now as it really begins in earnest, we can feel it as smoke in our throats. 
We can see it red skies at midday. 
We have to endure it as thousands of canceled flights due to extreme storms brought on by the heat domes. 
That’s where we’re headed now. 
What we are seeing this summer is a kind of teaser trailer for global warming. 
As the years pass we’ll be getting to the actual trailer and then, by the time today’s children are well into adulthood, we will see the actual movie. 
It can’t predict the future but I can say with some certainty, it’s not going to be a comedy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.7%Adam Frank: 10.0%Forbes: 3.1%Confirmation Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Adam Frank: 8.4%Forbes: 3.0%Availability Heuristic1.9%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.4%Adam Frank: 5.8%Forbes: 0.7%Hindsight Bias5.4%This article: 7.5%Adam Frank: 6.5%Forbes: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias7.5%This article: 9.1%Adam Frank: 7.2%Forbes: 5.8%Framing Effect9.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Adam Frank: 2.2%Forbes: 3.9%Optimism Bias6.5%This article: 4.4%Adam Frank: 9.6%Forbes: 1.3%Pessimism Bias4.4%This article: 20.0%Adam Frank: 12.6%Forbes: 5.4%Negativity Bias20.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.9%Adam Frank: 5.0%Forbes: 1.6%Recency Bias14.9%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.8%Adam Frank: 4.5%Forbes: 4.6%Appeal to Authority6.8%This article: 9.3%Adam Frank: 3.1%Forbes: 1.6%False Dilemma9.3%This article: 7.7%Adam Frank: 6.9%Forbes: 0.5%Slippery Slope7.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.9%Adam Frank: 3.9%Forbes: 5.7%Hasty Generalization8.9%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 26.3%Adam Frank: 21.0%Forbes: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion26.3%This article: 1.9%Adam Frank: 2.0%Forbes: 1.0%Begging the Question1.9%This article: 6.5%Adam Frank: 8.5%Forbes: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.5%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.4%Adam Frank: 0.5%Forbes: 0.3%Burden of Proof1.4%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.2%Adam Frank: 7.9%Forbes: 2.0%Anecdotal11.2%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.5%Adam Frank: 4.5%Forbes: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.5%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.3%Adam Frank: 0.8%Forbes: 0.0%Personal Incredulity2.3%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.2%Adam Frank: 1.4%Forbes: 1.1%Unattributed Quote4.2%This article: 4.2%Adam Frank: 2.8%Forbes: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.2%This article: 23.3%Adam Frank: 17.4%Forbes: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice23.3%This article: 15.4%Adam Frank: 6.6%Forbes: 2.5%Indoctrination15.4%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Frank: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Adam Frank: 1.2%Forbes: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.5%

429 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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