Scientists reactions to the US House Science Committee hearing on climate science
Only four witnesses were invited to testify before the committee, which cannot be representative of all the expertise required to understand a field as vast as climate science. So we have asked for additional scientists to weigh in on some noteworthy, scientifically verifiable statements made during the hearing to provide a broader and more representative view of the state of scientific knowledge.
Fostering more Accurate Science Coverage : Using Science Expertise to Evaluate News Trustworthiness
Learn from Climate Feedback how scientists can rise to the challenge of online misinformation Wednesday, April 5th, 3:30pm to 4:30pm (light refreshments to follow) UC Merced Library KL 232 As part of the International Fact-Checking Week and the UC Merced Library’s “Be Aware: Elevate Your News Evaluation” exhibit, we invite you to join us for a talk … Continued
The Daily Wire corrects story analyzed by scientists, but it’s still misleading
While the most inaccurate statements have been edited, the scientists who reviewed the post indicate that the implication that the study undercuts confidence in the human cause of modern climate change is still misleading. The research being described doesn’t relate to recent climate history. It relates to differences that existed about 90 million years ago in well-known cycles in Earth’s orbit.
Sensational claims of manipulated data in the Mail on Sunday are overblown
“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
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
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
“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
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
“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
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