Sensational claims of manipulated data in the Mail on Sunday are overblown

2017-02-06

“The “astonishing evidence” that David Rose purports to reveal in no way changes our understanding of modern warming or our best estimates of recent rates of warming. It does not in any way change the evidence that policymakers have at their disposal when deciding how to address the threats posed by climate change.”


IPSO decision ignores inaccuracies in The Spectator’s article on ocean acidification

2017-02-02

The article contains objectively inaccurate assertions on matters of fact—not opinion—and therefore does not meet the accuracy standards of IPSO’s Editors’ Code. By excusing articles like this one from following its standards, IPSO risks its credibility as an effective guardian of accountability for science journalism.


Wall Street Journal articles on 2016 heat record send contradicting messages

2017-01-27

On January 18, NASA and NOAA released the data showing that 2016 was the warmest year on record in both datasets. All other major global surface temperature datasets, including the UK Met Office, Japanese Meteorological Agency, and Berkeley Earth datasets, indicated a new record, as well. The Wall Street Journal reported this news in a … Continued


How to make sure a Q&A with a scientist doesn’t misrepresent science

2017-01-04

“When interviewing scientists, journalists need to make it clear to readers whether the resulting article is based on opinion or science. It is not sufficient to assume that an interview with an individual scientist will result in a science-based article”


Collaborating to address the rise of online misinformation – AGU2016

2016-11-22

Facebook and Google have recently received criticism for their role in fueling “fake news” and online misinformation … In this session, we will explore possible ways to identify information credibility and signal that credibility to Internet users…


When a sensational headline contradicts an article’s message

2016-10-18

“Sarah Knapton has written a reasonably well-balanced article, however, this article was placed under a misleading headline. The headline could just as easily have been: “Experts said that simplistic extrapolations of sea ice loss had little predictive value—and they were right.””


Insight into the scientific credibility of The Guardian climate coverage

2016-10-17

Over the past two months, Climate Feedback has asked its network of scientists to review 5 widely read articles published by The Guardian. Three were found to be both accurate and insightful. Two were found to contain inaccuracies, false or misleading information, and statements unsupported by current scientific knowledge. Insightful climate reporting in The Guardian … Continued


Our survey of Climate Feedback supporters

2016-07-12

During our crowdfunding campaign, we asked our backers which media sources they would most like scientists to check for accuracy in reporting on climate change. Here is what they told us. Climate Feedback supporters are mostly concerned by English language coverage, particularly the US We are grateful for the support of more than 500 backers. … Continued


Introducing the Scientific Trust Tracker

2016-05-17

Climate Feedback produces analyses and evaluations – we call them “feedbacks” – of influential reporting on climate change. Our feedbacks are already helping readers around the world distinguish between news stories based on science and those that only claim to be. Last week we published an in-depth review of the latest article by Bjørn Lomborg … Continued


Our survey of Climate Feedback supporters

2016-05-05

During our crowdfunding campaign, we are asking our backers which media sources they would most like scientists to check for accuracy in reporting on climate change. Out of more than 300 backers, here is what they told us so far. News outlets The Top 10 news outlets our backers want scientists to pay special attention … Continued