A TikTok creator called out a media outlet for spreading misleading claims about rising temperatures.

Lia and the World (@liaandtheworld) responded to arguments made by Lucy Biggers and The Free Press, explaining how the outlet mixes accurate but cherry-picked data with misleading framing to downplay the reality of the warming planet.

@liaandtheworld Let's wrap up this takedown with my final thoughts. Lucy Biggers and The Free Press are doing what many purveyors of "anti alarmism" do: they mix true, selective facts with misleading context to produce a comforting but wrong narrative. The real science - from the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and independent climate trackers are clear - climate change is happening, it's human caused, and the models are scarily accurate. Knowing these facts isn't "alarmism" - it's truth telling. The danger isn't people being too worried, it's being lulled into a false sense of comfort by disingenuous charts that tell you nothings wrong. What they want us to undermine public understanding and delay action. Don't be fooled. Question the sources. Trust the overwhelming evidence and your own eyes that our climate is changing. And then equipped with that knowledge, know that we still have the power to change course. #thefreepress #takedown #factcheck #climate #climateaction ♬ original sound - liaandtheworld

In the video, Lia points out that many of the sources cited by Biggers have direct ties to the oil and gas industry. 

"Nearly every chart and claim in that video comes from people with a long track record of defending fossil fuels — like Alex Epstein, who literally wrote 'The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,' and John Christy and Roy Spencer, whose data have been widely debunked for cherry-picking and bad methodology," she explains.

Scientific organizations, including NASA, NOAA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agree the planet is warming and human activity is the driver. In fact, a 2021 Cornell study showed that 99.9% of recently published scientific papers agreed on that point, and scientific models that predicted these changes have proved accurate over time.

When media outlets present fringe voices with industry funding as equivalent to scientific consensus, it creates confusion that can delay meaningful action.

Lia describes this approach as a common playbook among those pushing "anti-alarmism" content. The strategy involves mixing selective truths with misleading context to create a narrative that feels reassuring but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Her video encourages viewers to look closely at who funds and promotes the sources they encounter.

In other words, what does someone have to gain by trying to deny what 99.9% of scientific papers are agreeing on? What does that 0.1% have to gain? Is it pure, is it confusion, or is it funded to be wrong or misleading on purpose?

"Don't be fooled. Question the sources. Look at the full picture. Trust the overwhelming evidence and your own eyes that our planet is changing," Lia says.

Commenters echoed her message about media literacy. 

"A lot of people conflate news headlines with actual science," one wrote. "They often don't know that the actual scientific predictions are not what makes news headlines because they are not as 'doom and gloom' as the mainstream media makes them out to be."

Another added: "Amazing work! Thanks for all the corrections/climate information."

How often do you worry about air pollution where you live? Always 😷 Usually 😰 Sometimes 😟 Never ☺️ Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.

Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips to save more, waste less, and make smarter choices — and earn up to $5,000 toward clean upgrades in TCD's exclusive Rewards Club.