“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.
Popular article in The Independent accurately summarizes June heat in Europe
in The Independent, by Conrad Duncan
"The article accurately and clearly states the facts regarding the recent extreme heat in June 2019 and its link to anthropogenic warming. This includes acknowledging that, at this point, this June record and its connection to climate change is based on only a single temperature product and one attribution study, and that further analysis may slightly change the initial conclusions drawn by researchers."
— 05 Jul 2019
Financial Post commentary jumps to unsupported conclusions in claiming “climate change isn’t causing extreme weather”
in Financial Post, by Ross McKitrick
"This article is misleading since it confuses changes in climate change impacts with changes in climate and weather extremes and it subjectively selects examples that support its message. There is clear scientific evidence that many weather and climate extreme events increase in intensity and frequency due to anthropogenic climate change. Munich Re, for example, publishes data on global major extreme events in its annual reports."
— 13 Jun 2019
Claim that human civilization could end in 30 years is speculative, not supported with evidence
in IFLScience, by James Felton
"The report this article is based on describes a scenario which is unlikely, but several aspects of what is included in the report are likely to worsen in coming decades, such as the occurrence of deadly heatwaves. The conclusion of a high likelihood that human civilisation will end is false, although there is a great deal of evidence that there will be many damaging consequences to continued global warming over the coming decades."
— 09 Jun 2019
Commentary in The Australian by Ian Plimer relies on false claims to make its case
in The Australian, by Ian Plimer
"If you think that potentially causing hundreds of millions of refugees and trillions of dollars in damages is fine because some plants did well in the same conditions millions of years ago when humans weren’t around, then you could support this article."
— 20 May 2019
Breitbart article baselessly claims a study of past climate invalidates human-caused climate change
in Breitbart, by John Nolte
"By the reasoning of this article, if a rock rolled down a hill three million years ago, no human can be responsible for rolling a rock down a hill today. The fallaciousness of this reasoning is astounding. It is hard to imagine that a well-intentioned person can so profoundly misunderstand the science. Assuming the author is acting in good faith, this article provides evidence that motivated reasoning can produce results that appear delusional to well-informed people."
— 11 Apr 2019
Western Journal op-ed deceives readers with completely unsupported claims
in The Western Journal, by Jay Lehr, Tom Harris
"What would make their case stronger would be if they actually analysed all the data, engaged with the existing scientific literature and made their own contribution to our scientific understanding by publishing a scientific paper. The cherry picking exercise in this Western Journal article does not contribute to our scientific understanding of the world."
— 26 Feb 2019
New York Times’ coverage of IPCC report clearly presents conclusions
in The New York Times, by Coral Davenport
This story in The New York Times covered the October release of the IPCC's "Global Warming of 1.5 °C" report. Scientists who reviewed the story found that it provided an accurate and detailed summary of the report, though some statements about warming being "worse than previously thought" could have used some clarifying context.
— 24 Jan 2019
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. In the article, Peter Alexander is quoted saying something to the same effect."
— 23 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."
— 22 Jan 2019
BBC article on IPCC report is mostly accurate, but could use some clarification
in BBC, by Matt McGrath
"Scientifically, the article is overall correct, but it is in cases inaccurate in its description of certain aspects of the IPCC. For example, the IPCC does not conduct research, but assesses the available scientific evidence. The article also provides statements without context, despite this being essential for their interpretation."
— 21 Jan 2019
 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.