Climate Feedback accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter
Climate Feedback has received accreditation by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at The Poynter Institute. Climate Feedback is the first and only accredited organization pioneering a community approach to “fact-checking”: crowdsourcing the evaluation of information credibility from a network of scientists with relevant expertise. The IFCN is “committed to promoting excellence in fact-checking”. Its new … Continued
Rand Paul argument for withdrawing from Paris climate agreement based on flawed information, Prof. Gary Yohe explains
Professor of economics Gary Yohe explains that the claim Sen. Rand Paul relies on is flawed and not consistent with current scientific knowledge.
Poynter Training “SciFacts: Fact-Checking Claims About Science”
Friday, June 16, 9 a.m. -5 p.m Poynter Institute campus in St. Petersburg, Florida The Poynter Institute is hosting a free one-day workshop to discuss the key challenges of reporting the facts about science. This workshop is specifically designed for reporters who have recently started covering the science, as well as anyone who writes … Continued
Daily Wire updates its article, but it still conveys false information
The author has removed two paragraphs and changed the title, but the new version of the article does not contain any mention of the fact that the article has been updated.
The New York Times promotes the case for climate change skepticism with a column that is light on substance
the New York Times opinion section itself apparently didn’t realize that the content of Mr. Stephens’ piece did not actually support the message of the push notification that was introducing the article…
CNN airs misleading climate claims in interview
“Dr. Happer’s assertion that models show 2x to 3x greater warming than observations is incorrect. At the surface (where we all live) models predict a rate of warming of 0.2 °C per decade since 1970, while NASA observes warming of around 0.18 °C during the same period.”
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.”