“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]


Wall Street Journal commentary grossly misleads readers about science of sea level rise

in The Wall Street Journal, by Fred Singer

"The article has almost nothing to do with the modern state of sea-level science. The author tries to call into question that global warming causes sea-level rise, and does so by cherry-picking a short segment of data from 1915-1945, a time when data quality is poor and the warming signal small—a bizarre approach that could never pass scientific peer review and is apparently aimed at misleading a lay audience."

— 18 May 2018


Business Insider highlights health impacts of climate change, but some aspects are misleading

in Business Insider, by Kevin Loria

"The article draws attention to the high CO2 at present and the health risks of climate change, but it gives the incorrect impression that breathing CO2 directly is a major cause of concern. The most important health effects of climate change—heat stress, vector-borne diseases, air pollution, access to food and water, severe storms, displacement—do get some discussion here."

— 15 May 2018


The Australian’s coverage of Great Barrier Reef study creates perception that scientists are divided

in The Australian, by Graham Lloyd

"The Australian chooses to present a mixed message on this story when the science is extremely clear. The title and quote from Prof. Kaempf do not represent the views of the broader scientific community."

— 22 Apr 2018


Investor’s Business Daily editorial misrepresents study to claim plants will prevent dangerous climate change

in Investors' Business Daily, by Investors' Business Daily editors

"Our nitrogen study does not detract from the urgency of the climate problem, nor the unequivocal evidence of the role of carbon pollution in causing global climate change. The climate threat is clear and present and we must solve it rapidly by reducing emissions and capturing existing CO2 from the atmosphere."

— 12 Apr 2018


Washington Post accurately covers permafrost study, albeit under a somewhat sensational headline

in The Washington Post, by Chris Mooney

The article accurately described a study indicating that more of the carbon released from thawing permafrost will be released as methane and provided context on its overall implications by quoting comments from two other researchers. The article’s headline, however, may mislead readers through the use of the sensational phrase “the Arctic’s carbon bomb”, which calls to mind a catastrophic, explosive release of greenhouse gas.

— 22 Mar 2018


Financial Post publishes misleading opinion that misrepresents science of polar bears’ plight

in Financial Post, by Susan Crockford

"The article is composed of misstatements. These are either based upon the author’s apparent lack of understanding of the ecological and geophysical situations, or intent to mislead readers."

— 02 Mar 2018


New satellite measurements show sea level rise is accelerating, as CNN accurately reports

in CNN, by Brandon Miller

"Global geological sea-level data, data from tide gauge and now satellite data all show that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. These accelerations in sea level is a cause for great concern."

— 15 Feb 2018


National Geographic video of starving polar bear should have clarified uncertain link to climate change

in National Geographic, by Sarah Gibbens

"The article contains valid information on the devastating consequences of climate change on polar bears. The only problem as I see it is that the article presents (implicitly) that the polar bear in the video is dying as a consequence of climate change and from not finding enough food due to lack of sea ice..."

— 17 Jan 2018


Atlantic story on the climate implications of reduced beef consumption could provide clearer context

in The Atlantic, by James Hamblin

"The article explains the issue (meat production diverts crops from humans to cattle) on a simple level. More explanation and more context could have been provided, I think, regarding individual-level and sectoral sources of greenhouse emissions."

— 17 Jan 2018


New York Times effectively informs readers about large Larsen C iceberg calving event

in The New York Times, by Jugal K. Patel and Justin Gillis

"The article handles a complex topic well. It would be easy to be alarmist with this subject matter, and while its lede edges that way, the main content of the article is very balanced. It also presents a lot of interesting information in a compelling manner."

— 17 Jan 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.