Topic summary
48%11 analyzed articles/videos13,447 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Fossil Fuels results contain 49 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 10.2% saturation with 4,894 hits. Analysis detected 44,212 faulty-reasoning hits from 48,088 analyzed words across 11 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.9% and a BS Rank of 19% (13,372 of 16,503 topics). This Fossil Fuels is better (less manipulative) than 81.00% of the peer group.

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

19% percentile
025507510019.0% percentile
1.9% BS Score11 analyzed articles48.1K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 10.2%10.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 5.2%5.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 8.6%8.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.8%3.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.2%2.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.2%1.2%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.4%1.4%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.1%1.1%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.2%1.2%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.9%0.9%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Framing Effect: Topic 10.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 8.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 5.2%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 8.1%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 8.0%, sitewide 5.3%Confirmation Bias: Topic 5.2%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 4.0%, sitewide 3.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 2.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 3.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 3.1%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.5%Ad Hominem: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 2.2%Bandwagon: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos

The great Net Zero showdown53%
UnHerd69%By John Rapley52%7/23/2026, 11:02:39 PM
These Fires And Heat Waves Show Why They Call It Global Warming72%
Forbes45%By Adam Frank0%7/17/2026, 12:43:46 PM
Landmark Science Report Confirms Big Oil’s Fingerprints on Extreme Weather, as Industry Races for Legal Shield91%
Common Dreams96%By Newswire Editor94%7/16/2026, 5:21:32 PM
New National Academy of Sciences Climate Attribution Report Underscores How Climate Change Fuels Extreme Weather85%
Common Dreams96%By Newswire Editor94%7/16/2026, 3:00:48 PM
Nation’s Biggest Public Utility Just Doubled Down on Coal, Gas, and Nuclear25%
Mother Jones51%By Katie Myers35%7/15/2026, 11:30:00 AM
They wanted to hold Exxon accountable. Then they got hacked.11%
Grist28%By Hilary Beaumont9%7/15/2026, 10:00:00 AM
Banks are financing the fossil fuel industry’s next growth strategy35%
Grist28%By Joseph Winters0%7/1/2026, 8:30:00 AM
Alaska GOP Pushes 800-Mile Gas Terminal and Pipeline That Could Decimate Climate68%
Truthout74%By Mike Ludwig79%6/26/2026, 5:08:07 PM
Trump announces $700M investment in coal plants21%
One America News Network0%By OAN Staff Jenna Lee0% Sophia Flores0%6/4/2026, 6:23:42 PM
The American epoch of oil is collapsing. What comes next could be ugly45%
The Guardian81%By Jonathan Watts0%5/17/2026, 1:00:41 PM