“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]


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


Guardian story accurately covers sea ice event but makes unsupported connection to weather patterns and the Gulf Stream

in The Guardian, by Jonathan Watts

"The article is clear and accurate. The authors have consulted several experts in the field to develop this story. They provide a scientifically sound overview of the current sea ice state north of Greenland, its historical context, and what has caused this anomaly."

— 28 Aug 2018


The Australian publishes “deeply ill-informed” opinion on climate by Ian Plimer

in The Australian, by Ian Plimer

"This article is an amalgamation of logical fallacies, misleading talking points, and downright factually incorrect statements regarding the physics of the climate system. Every talking point in this article has been debunked many times over and it is astonishing that this was published."

— 09 Aug 2018


Guardian coverage of essay on potential of future “hothouse” climate is generally accurate, but misstates some details

in The Guardian, by Jonathan Watts

"The article reasonably summarizes a new study published in PNAS, which describes the potential of tipping elements to enhance climate warming and the potential for the Earth to transition into a hot-house climate state. The article is careful to point out uncertainties and thus avoids being sensational. However, there are many small errors scattered throughout the article."

— 09 Aug 2018


Washington Post story puts recent weather extremes in accurate climate change context

in The Washington Post, by Joel Achenbach, Angela Fritz

"This article accurately describes the broader climate context of recent heat extremes throughout the Northern Hemisphere. There are a couple spots where specific claims are somewhat stronger than justified by the existing scientific evidence, but in general the piece gives an accurate impression regarding the role of climate change and recent advances in extreme event attribution science."

— 31 Jul 2018


NPR story accurately describes ecological consequences of altered spring timings in a warming climate

in NPR, by Nathan Rott

"This article at NPR discusses what happens when warm spring weather arrives earlier because of climate change. Animals must adjust to changes in the timing of plant flowering, for example, leading to noticeable desynchrony in the ecosystem..."

— 27 Jul 2018


USA Today story accurate but lacks clarity regarding timescales over which warming could be underestimated

in USA Today, by Doyle Rice

"An accurate and balanced article that gives readers a good flavour of the research but the reference to “Earth’s history” might confuse some when it otherwise refers to the studied period: the past 3.5 million years. Neatly explains a lot of the key points in a small word count, but..."

— 10 Jul 2018


Daily Mail correctly reports that climate change leads to more severe heatwaves, but explanation of recent weather is off the mark

in Daily Mail, by Joe Pinkstone

"Mostly this article is accurate in its reporting of the recent heat over North America and Eurasia. However, there are a few misleading statements, including the headline, that exaggerate both the scale of the event and the likely role of climate change."

— 07 Jul 2018


Financial Post commentary misleads about warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions by cherry-picking studies

in Financial Post, by Ross McKitrick

"This is an opinion piece in the "lukewarm" category, arguing that climate models are wrong, future warming will be small, based on carefully selected publications, misleading presentation, and incorrect reporting of the underlying data."

— 22 Jun 2018


Washington Post article accurately describes latest estimate of accelerating Antarctic ice loss

in The Washington Post, by Chris Mooney

"The article presents the results of the study accurately, and uses multiple comments from scientists both involved and not-involved in the study to highlight the key findings. Some of the explanations are simplified, and there is a slight attempt at the end to downplay the results by suggesting scientists can’t predict the future. It is correct that the study presented is not making predictions, rather documenting past changes, but the positive trend is what we would expect based on the longer record of change we have for glaciers and ice caps."

— 15 Jun 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.