“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.
PragerU video on climate change repeats a range of misleading claims by Steven Koonin
in PragerU, by Steve Koonin
"The author of this video, Dr. Steven Koonin, says he is following the scientific reports published by the UN and US government, but by subtly changing wording and choosing not to mention important context this video is very likely to mislead readers. This style of selective wording and lack of context, an approach called “cherry picking”, applies to every one of Dr. Koonin’s scientific comments."
— 29 Nov 2021
Rain fell on Greenland summit for the first time on record, as accurately reported by CNN
in CNN, by Rachel Ramirez
"The article is highly factual. One issue that we have is the lack of data over the Greenland Ice Sheet (both spatially and temporally). Thus some of the claims, although backed by the limited data, are valid; we can't be sure that we may have missed similar outliers. For example, we can't be sure that a rain event of the type described did not occur in the period before observations were made or may have occurred somewhere on the ice sheet before in a region without any observations."
— 29 Sep 2021
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
 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.