“Is this article consistent with the latest thinking and knowledge in science?”
“Would experts in this field endorse the main message of this article?”

These are the types of questions our “feedbacks” are designed to answer. If the feedback is positive, you can generally assume the information you’re reading is of high credibility. If it’s negative, however, you may want to read with extra care and attention — some of the information contained and conclusions reached are not consistent with science.[1]


Analysis of “How a Melting Arctic Changes Everything”

in Bloomberg, by Blacki Migliozzi & Eric Roston

Declining Arctic sea ice cover and thawing permafrost are both complex feedbacks that amplify global warming: The loss of reflective sea ice means more sunlight absorbed by the dark Arctic Ocean, while thawing permafrost can release greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

— 21 Apr 2017


Analysis of “From extreme drought to record rain: Why California’s drought-to-deluge cycle is getting worse”

in Los Angeles Times, by Paige St. John and Rong-Gong Lin II

"The article is accurate and highlights the challenges that California’s water resource managers are facing due to climate change. There are some issues with differentiating natural climate variability and forced climate change but the main points are correct."

— 14 Apr 2017


Analysis of “Miami’s fight against rising seas”

in BBC, by Amanda Ruggeri

"The information in this story is generally correct—the frequency and severity of flooding is accelerating due to sea level rise, and the quoted scientists from NOAA and FAU are credible experts in this field."

— 07 Apr 2017


Analysis of “One of the most troubling ideas about climate change just found new evidence in its favor”

in The Washington Post, by Chris Mooney

"Overall, this piece accurately describes the findings of a new research paper by Mann et al on linkages between rapid Arctic warming and extreme weather at Earth's more temperate latitudes. While there are a couple of statements that are overly confident given available evidence in the peer-reviewed literature, the author generally does an excellent job placing this new work into the broader context of related studies over the past decade."

— 29 Mar 2017


Analysis of “Record-breaking climate change pushes world into ‘uncharted territory’”

in The Guardian, by Damian Carrington

"The article clearly and concisely documents some of 2016's climate extremes and puts them in the context of the warming trend."

— 22 Mar 2017


Analysis of “Large Sections of Australia’s Great Reef Are Now Dead, Scientists Find”

in The New York Times, by Justin Gillis & Damien Cave

While natural temperature fluctuations (due to El Niño, for example) have always occurred, they are now superimposed on a warmer background due to human-induced global warming. That causes mass coral bleaching to happen more frequently.

— 18 Mar 2017


Analysis of “Why are climate-change models so flawed? Because climate science is so incomplete”

in The Boston Globe, by Jeff Jacoby

"The facts given by the author regarding the skills of climate models and the state of the art are mostly wrong. The most important processes are not understood by the author and his logic is flawed."

— 16 Mar 2017


Analysis of “Scientists: Here’s What Really Causes Climate Change (And It Has Nothing To Do With Human Beings)”

in The Daily Wire, by James Barrett

"The article misuses a Nature article on a geological process 90 millions years ago to argue the warming of the past century is not anthropogenic. It seems the reasoning is ideologically motivated rather than based on reality."

— 28 Feb 2017


Analysis of “Here’s why it’s so frickin’ hot right now”

in Mashable, by Andrew Freedman

"a nice summary of the current warm events in the bigger context of climate change. I caution against using a single month of data to support claims about climate change impacts on extremes, but the discussion about record highs outpacing record lows is a good one and provides strong evidence for influence of global warming on regional weather."

— 28 Feb 2017


Analysis of “Scientists have just detected a major change to the Earth’s oceans linked to a warming climate”

in The Washington Post, by Chris Mooney

"Changes in ocean chemistry, temperature, and circulation have significant consequences for marine life and can initiate positive feedbacks to accelerate ocean and atmosphere warming. This article is refreshing in that the author presents the results and significance of global ocean oxygen loss accurately and very clearly for non-expert audiences."

— 19 Feb 2017


[1] Note: These feedbacks do not constitute endorsements of the author’s political or economic ideology, rather they are assessments of the scientific foundations and reasoning of the argumentation contained within each article.