Common Dreams⁠98%

New National Academy of Sciences Climate Attribution Report Underscores How Climate Change Fuels Extreme Weather ⁠86%

By Newswire Editor⁠98%

7/16/2026, 8:00:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Framing Effect, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 51.2% saturation with 262 hits. Analysis detected 2,202 faulty-reasoning hits from 512 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠86% (4,301 of 30,190 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.80% of the article peer group.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report today synthesizing decades of climate attribution research that underscores how heat-trapping emissions from burning fossil fuels makes different types of extreme weather more likely and/or severe. 
NAS conducted an overview of events like extreme heat, drought, wildfires, tropical cyclones and convective storms. 
They also touch on event impact attribution, the leading edge of the field that quantifies how climate change has contributed to specific harms like increased human mortality and economic losses. 
The report and its contributors have been attacked by the fossil fuel industry in the lead up to today’s release, the latest in a coordinated campaign by Big Oil to undermine climate science and intimidate scientists . 
Companies like BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell are facing mounting lawsuits aiming to hold them accountable for the climate damages caused by their decades-long disinformation campaign . 
In April, U.S. 
Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Harriet Hageman introduced a bill offering sweeping immunity from liability to these major climate polluters. 
Below is a statement by Dr. 
Carly Phillips , senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and co-author of multiple attribution studies, including on forest fires in the western United States and global sea level rise . 
“Attribution science confirms what billions of people around the world have experienced firsthand—deadly events like extreme heatwaves are occurring more often and tropical cyclones are more intense due to climate change. 
Despite efforts by the fossil fuel industry and its cronies to intimidate panelists and misrepresent the research, the Academies’ report affirms the scientific consensus: attribution science is based on rigorous peer reviewed methods and provides critical information about how climate change is driving increases in the frequency and/or severity of extreme events. 
“This robust research field provides key evidence to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its role in driving climate change. 
Congress must not grant Big Oil immunity for climate deception and the harms they knowingly caused that attribution science makes evident. 
Communities deserve their day in court and no one—including fossil fuel companies that have profited at the expense of people and the planet—should be above the law.” 
The attack on attribution science is part of a larger effort supported by the Trump administration to eliminate states’ and communities’ ability to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its role in the climate crisis, particularly through the courts. 
EPA Administrator Zeldin’s attack on the Endangerment Finding , a foundational scientific finding that global warming emissions endanger public health and the environment and thus must be regulated by the EPA, also included baseless attacks on attribution science. 
To speak with Dr. 
Phillips, please reach out to UCS Communications Officer Daela Taeoalii-Tipton at dtaeoaliitipton@ucs.org or 801-808-0759. 
Additional UCS resources: 
Peer-reviewed study tracing fossil fuel companies’ contribution to climate change and ocean acidification 
Peer-reviewed study attributing climate change and sea level rise to fossil fuel companies 
Blog post explaining attribution science 
Blog post on accurately communicating about attribution science 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 39.8%Newswire editor: 8.3%Common Dreams: 7.8%Confirmation Bias39.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.5%Common Dreams: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Newswire editor: 5.1%Common Dreams: 4.6%Availability Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.9%Common Dreams: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 39.5%Newswire editor: 19.0%Common Dreams: 16.8%Framing Effect39.5%This article: 5.3%Newswire editor: 1.9%Common Dreams: 1.4%Loss Aversion5.3%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Newswire editor: 1.9%Common Dreams: 1.8%Optimism Bias5.9%This article: 4.1%Newswire editor: 3.4%Common Dreams: 3.1%Pessimism Bias4.1%This article: 51.2%Newswire editor: 18.6%Common Dreams: 18.5%Negativity Bias51.2%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.5%Common Dreams: 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Newswire editor: 3.3%Common Dreams: 3.7%In-Group Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.1%Common Dreams: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.9%Common Dreams: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.6%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: 1.4%Common Dreams: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 24.8%Newswire editor: 5.3%Common Dreams: 6.3%Ad Hominem24.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.9%Common Dreams: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 31.8%Newswire editor: 5.2%Common Dreams: 4.9%Appeal to Authority31.8%This article: 5.3%Newswire editor: 4.1%Common Dreams: 3.5%False Dilemma5.3%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 3.7%Common Dreams: 3.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 8.9%Common Dreams: 8.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.1%Newswire editor: 2.3%Common Dreams: 2.1%Bandwagon4.1%This article: 32.6%Newswire editor: 18.8%Common Dreams: 17.7%Appeal to Emotion32.6%This article: 15.6%Newswire editor: 3.9%Common Dreams: 3.4%Begging the Question15.6%This article: 15.0%Newswire editor: 4.3%Common Dreams: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.4%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.3%Burden of Proof15.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.6%Common Dreams: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.1%Newswire editor: 1.8%Common Dreams: 1.8%Anecdotal6.1%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.0%Newswire editor: 1.8%Common Dreams: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.0%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: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.9%Newswire editor: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.3%Special Pleading3.9%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.1%Newswire editor: 1.5%Common Dreams: 1.8%Unattributed Quote6.1%This article: 15.4%Newswire editor: 2.3%Common Dreams: 2.3%Quote-first Misdirection15.4%This article: 28.7%Newswire editor: 15.7%Common Dreams: 16.9%Biased Writer Voice28.7%This article: 36.5%Newswire editor: 10.5%Common Dreams: 8.2%Indoctrination36.5%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 18.5%Common Dreams: 16.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias11.7%This article: 8.0%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S
8.0%

512 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker10%attributed speech460writer words
Selected voice

Carly Phillips

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words100% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+94.1 ptsWriter: 5.9%Carly Phillips: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+70.7 ptsWriter: 29.3%Carly Phillips: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+59.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Carly Phillips: 59.6%59.6%Biased Writer Voice-32.0 ptsWriter: 32.0%Carly Phillips: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -13.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%Carly Phillips: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.9 ptsWriter: 8.9%Carly Phillips: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading

Loading

Loading

Loading


Analysis

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