“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]

CO2 coalition sponsored article in The Washington Times presents list of false and misleading statements about the impacts of CO2 and climate change

in The Washington Times, by Gregory Wrightstone

"This article recycles old tropes such as “it’s been warm before”, “CO2 levels have been higher in the past” (millions of years ago!), “CO2 is plant food”, “warming is good for ecosystems/humans”, “so far impacts are small, so they will remain small”, etc. All these pseudo-arguments have been addressed many times before (see examples here, here, and here). This article is clearly motivated, misleading and biased."

— 05 May 2021

Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin’s new book ’Unsettled’

in The Wall Street Journal, by Mark P. Mills

Scientists who reviewed the article found that it builds on a collection of misleading and false claims. For instance, Koonin states that “Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago”. Contrary to the claim, scientific studies using airborne and satellite altimetry observations show considerable thinning has occurred along the margin of the Greenland ice sheet since 2003.

— 03 May 2021

Video promoted by John Stossel for Earth Day relies on incorrect and misleading claims about climate change

in Stossel TV, by John Stossel, Patrick Michaels, David Legates

"This video is misleading in so many ways it’s hard to know where to begin. For a start there’s a repeated assertion that climate “alarmists” won’t enter debate on climate change, but there are many examples of renowned climate scientists such as Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and David Karoly entering into debates with climate change denialists. Many scientists have found such debates to be unhelpful as they give the false impression of balance despite there being broad consensus among climate scientists..."

— 21 Apr 2021

Destruction of the Amazon forest very likely contributes to global warming, as accurately described in The National Geographic article

in National Geographic, by Craig Welch

"The article is good overall, although there are two small issues. First, the title seems to overestimate the results. The scientific study the National Geographic article is based on cannot account for all of the climate forcers, as there are no Amazon basin wide estimates (as clearly stated in the study). This drawback could potentially change the overall warming effect, and therefore the title seems to exaggerate."

— 23 Mar 2021

Atlantic ocean circulation system is slowing down, as accurately described in The New York Times article

in The New York Times, by Moises Velasquez-Manoff and Jeremy White

"This article is well-written, and the visuals are outstanding. It is a very strong piece of science communication. That being said, there is at least one error. The author mistakenly conflates the long-term warming hole with the shorter-term North Atlantic cold anomaly. The two phenomena have very different timescales and are likely driven by different mechanisms."

— 11 Mar 2021

Breitbart article makes numerous false claims about the impacts of climate change, based on Global Warming Policy Foundation post

in Breitbart, by James Delingpole, Dr. Indur Goklany

"The article’s scientific credibility is very low. The author cherry-picks data, makes broad generalizations and characterizations based on incomplete or flimsy reasoning, and repeatedly misinterprets technological and economic progress in justifying false claims and misinformation minimizing global warming impacts."

— 12 Feb 2021

Video interview of Ian Plimer at Sky News falsely claims that a new study announces an incoming ice age, partly based on an incorrect Daily Mail headline

in Sky News, by Ian Plimer

"This video is chock full of false and misleading information, and presented in a way to make the correct scientific information seem like a farce. For example, the direct link between human emissions of carbon dioxide and global warming is very well established. The physics and chemistry of this link has been understood for well over 100 years, and science continues to affirm it."

— 20 Jan 2021

Guardian article on Arctic methane emissions claiming “a new climate feedback loop may have been triggered” lacks important context

in The Guardian, by Jonathan Watts

"This article’s claim that methane deposits in the Arctic Ocean are starting to be released, awakening a “sleeping giant”, cannot be supported by the limited observational data. Besides, even if these newly found seeps are increasing, they are located too deep in the ocean to have a significant impact on the concentration of methane in the atmosphere."

— 30 Oct 2020

Article by The Daily Caller oversimplifies drivers of wildfires and downplays role of climate change

in The Daily Caller, by Chris White

"The causes of the increase in burned area in the western US in recent decades – and the record-setting fires of 2020 – are complex, driven by a mix of a changing climate, a 100-year legacy of overzealous fire suppression in forests adapted for frequent low-level fires, more people living in highly flammable wildland urban interface areas, and at times a counterproductive role of some environmental regulations. However, this article glosses over much of this complexity, presenting a simple but misleading narrative that land management rules enacted by the Clinton administration set the stage for the destructive fires we are experiencing today."

— 28 Sep 2020

Article by CNN exaggerates study’s implications for future Greenland ice loss with “point of no return” claim

in CNN, by Max Claypool and Brandon Miller

The article in CNN discusses findings from a study published August, 2020 that analyzes trends of ice discharge from the Greenland Ice Sheet over the past three decades[1]. Reports on this study were also published by Reuters and Phys.org, receiving over 200,000 interactions on Facebook across the three articles, according to CrowdTangle. Scientists who reviewed … Continued

— 20 Aug 2020

[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.