“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]


Guardian story on climate impacts of diet gets mixed reviews from scientists

in The Guardian, by Damian Carrington

"The word “Avoiding” in title and text is overly strong and should have been “Reducing”. Adopting a vegan diet is not necessary, but a reduction to having meat 1-2 times a week and dairy 3-4 times a week would suffice. In fact, flexitarian diets utilize natural resources much more efficiently than vegan diets[1]. In the article, Peter Alexander is quoted saying something to the same effect."

— 17 Jan 2019


Story on congressman’s incorrect claims about sea level rise could have corrected them more explicitly

in Science Magazine, E&E News, by Scott Waldman

"The comments from the members of the Committee suffer from severe inaccuracies and misconceptions, and citations of the invited climate scientist mostly address those issues. In general, the views that go against our understanding of the climate change process are underlined and presented as such by the author, but rarely supported by statements or explanations that go beyond the immediate replies from the invited climate scientist. Some of the inaccurate statements quoted in the text are thus left with an incomplete challenge."

— 16 Jan 2019


USA Today story updates readers on trend in monthly global temperatures

in USA Today, by Doyle Rice

"The piece accurately reports the surface temperature record warming of recent decades and joins the dots appropriately to the underlying cause of human emissions. It appropriately draws the distinction between regional/national records and the global mean behaviour. The included quotes are to authoritative sources."

— 14 Jan 2019


Washington Post article accurately discusses warm Arctic weather event

in The Washington Post, by Jason Samenow

"This article accurately describes the Arctic warming event and associated surprise by scientists, includes multiple explanations for possible causes, and does not overstate any connections to climate change, pointing out that more data is needed to know if these above-freezing events will be a new Arctic normal."

— 14 Jan 2019


Popular “Friends of Science” video promoted by Youtube presents long list of climate myths

in Friends of Science, YouTube, by Steve Goreham

"The video presents a litany of the usual climate denier talking points, none of which hold any water. It is full of outright false claims and does not even shy away from presenting a fake TIME magazine cover that supposedly warned of an ice age. “Friends of Science” is an advocacy group “largely funded by the fossil fuel industry”"

— 21 Dec 2018


Popular story on Fox2Now accurately describes 2017 global temperature, sea ice extent

in Fox2News, CNN, by Brandon Miller, Fox2News Staff

"The article is factually correct. The reality that Arctic sea ice is getting younger is not so well known from the public, so such an article is welcome. The article’s title and the front video are about sea ice, but most of the rest of the text is about global temperatures."

— 04 Dec 2018


Washington Post accurately describes ocean warming study (which has since been corrected)

in The Washington Post, by Chris Mooney, Brady Dennis

"The Washington Post article accurately reports the results and links to other topics using reliable sources. Quotations from Pieter Tans and Paul Durack add important caveats showing that this is strong new evidence but not the final say. This caution is vital for readers to interpret the findings."

— 03 Nov 2018


Guardian story accurately describes study on environmental impacts of our food system

in The Guardian, by Damian Carrington

"Although the presented facts are clear, the scientists give a personal interpretation of the priorities and needed policies, which are not covered in the source. The data give added value, but are in line with earlier studies."

— 17 Oct 2018


Guardian story conveys statement by scientists stressing role of deforestation in climate change

in The Guardian, by Oliver Milman

"The article correctly links estimates of current carbon dioxide emissions from land use and land cover change with fairly conservative estimates for potential carbon sequestration embedded in "natural climate solutions" as part of the climate mitigation strategy to avoid 1.5°C warming. Land-use and land-cover change is responsible for roughly 10-15% of total global carbon dioxide emissions. Forest management, reforestation, and afforestation where appropriate, is part of the climate mitigation portfolio assessed by Integrated Assessment Models used in the IPCC process."

— 09 Oct 2018


USA Today op-ed ignores evidence to claim climate change had no role in Hurricane Florence

in USA Today, by Roy Spencer

This op-ed in USA Today makes the claim that Hurricane Florence has no appreciable contribution from human-caused climate change. Scientists who reviewed the article found that it ignores the evidence for trends in tropical cyclone behavior, including slower movement speed and more intense rainfall. Additionally, sea level rise raised the storm surge of the landfalling tropical cyclone above the level it would have reached a century ago. The article cherry-picks data in misleading way to claim that recent storms are no different from past tropical cyclones...

— 17 Sep 2018


[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.