Climate change could redraw California’s wine map ⁠72%

By Corinne Purtill⁠77% Los Angeles Times⁠100%

8/4/2026, 6:03:05 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Anchoring Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 75% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 129 faulty-reasoning hits from 68 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (7,983 of 28,497 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.00% of the article peer group.

It was Labor Day 2017, and the remote thermometer at McIntyre Estate Vineyard in Monterey County, Calif.’s, Santa Lucia Highlands was registering a noontime temperature Steve McIntyre couldn’t quite believe: 104 degrees. 
McIntyre jumped in his car, hoping the sensor was broken. 
Twenty miles later, he stepped out into the searing air at his vineyard and knew there was no mistake. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 27.9%Corinne Purtill: 3.6%The Columbian: 3.5%Confirmation Bias27.9%This article: 14.7%Corinne Purtill: 1.1%The Columbian: 0.7%Anchoring Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 6.3%The Columbian: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.6%The Columbian: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 1.4%The Columbian: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 3.2%The Columbian: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 5.6%The Columbian: 6.9%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.7%The Columbian: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 2.6%The Columbian: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.3%The Columbian: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 6.9%The Columbian: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 1.2%The Columbian: 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 47.1%Corinne Purtill: 10.2%The Columbian: 9.3%Negativity Bias47.1%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 1.7%The Columbian: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 1.0%The Columbian: 1.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.2%The Columbian: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 1.5%The Columbian: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.2%The Columbian: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 2.5%The Columbian: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 1.4%The Columbian: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.4%The Columbian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.2%The Columbian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.7%The Columbian: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.8%The Columbian: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 6.7%The Columbian: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 1.0%The Columbian: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 1.6%The Columbian: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 5.3%The Columbian: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.6%The Columbian: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 1.5%The Columbian: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 3.4%The Columbian: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.4%The Columbian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.3%Corinne Purtill: 4.6%The Columbian: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.3%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.8%The Columbian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.2%The Columbian: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.4%The Columbian: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 75.0%Corinne Purtill: 3.3%The Columbian: 1.6%Anecdotal75.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.7%The Columbian: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.2%The Columbian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 14.7%Corinne Purtill: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity14.7%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.2%The Columbian: 0.5%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.9%The Columbian: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.4%The Columbian: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.6%The Columbian: 6.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.7%The Columbian: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Corinne Purtill: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

68 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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