“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]


New York Times accurately covers 2017 record low Arctic winter sea ice extent

in The New York Times, by Henry Fountain

"The article accurately reports on the state of Arctic sea ice at the annual maximum (in March) and its causes, and gives an insightful discussion as to the implications. There is one point which may be misleading..."

— 16 Jan 2018


Conservative Tribune post falsely claims cancelled Arctic research cruise is evidence against climate change

in Conservative Tribune, by Benjamin Arie

"Repeating a version of a debunked argument against climate change science, this biased and misleading political article states that the cancellation of an Arctic research cruise due to increased sea ice at one time and in one region proves climate scientists don't know anything about climate change over 100 years, which is patently false."

— 16 Jan 2018


IFLScience story on Florida sea level rise somewhat unclear but generally correct

in IFLScience, by Robin Andrews

"While the information in this article is essentially correct, the links lead to loosely related articles published on the same website, rather than articles that directly support the statements made in the article. The explanation of the acceleration of sea level rise in Florida is oversimplified, probably because it is difficult to summarize concisely."

— 16 Jan 2018


New York Times’ news coverage of 2016 global temperature data was an accurate summary

in The New York Times, by Justin Gillis

"A clear and accurate article on the temperature record in 2016, looking back at the records in 2015 and 2014. The article places them in the proper context of long-term warming, while mentioning the special effect that helped make the year a record."

— 16 Jan 2018


Futurism story on Great Barrier Reef compromised by sensational headline

in Futurism, by June Javelosa and Jolene Creighton

"The content is almost all correct, but the attention-grabbing headline is wrong and isn't supported by the quotes from two scientists or by the rest of the content."

— 16 Jan 2018


Breitbart article on California fires misleads by omitting explanation of climate’s influence

in Breitbart, by Joel Pollak

"The Breitbart article provides a poorly reasoned and misleading view of how climate change has contributed to recent fires in California and the rest of the western USA. The most informative part of the article is the link that it provides to a piece by Southern California Public Radio, which, unlike the Breitbart article, provides an informative and unbiased look at factors contributing to these recent fires."

— 19 Dec 2017


Daily Caller uncritically reports poorly supported conclusion of satellite temperature study

in The Daily Caller, by Michael Bastasch

"The absence of accelerating warming trends is meant to go against prevailing climate science, but I find that to be a strawman argument. In that sense the article is misleading—however, to its credit, it does report on other published results that contradict this recent study, but it fails to provide further context or to make any effort to compare/reconcile the validity of these different studies."

— 04 Dec 2017


Grist article on an “Ice Apocalypse” mostly accurate, but doesn’t make the likelihood of that apocalypse clear enough to readers

in Grist, by Eric Holthaus

"The article has a bias, emphasizing the high end scenarios of ice sheet behavior, avoiding scrutiny of model assumptions. The concept of marine ice cliff instability and how unusual it is as a mechanism today on the vast coastline of Antarctica or Greenland is ignored."

— 28 Nov 2017


Guardian explores sea level rise impact on cities, but fails to make timescale clear

in The Guardian, by Jonathan Watts, Dom Phillips, Helen Roxburgh, Josh Holder, Justin McCurry, Niko Kommenda, Richard Luscombe, & Ruth Michaelson

"This article provides an excellent visual of an unfortunately very likely general future for humanity, in which sea level rise slowly inundates many coastal cities ... However, one major drawback of this article is that the magnitude and timescale of the sea level rises described in this report are not well explained."

— 09 Nov 2017


The Independent makes a giant leap in stating that modern global warming could be “worse than thought” based on a single study

in The Independent, by Andrew Griffin

"The article reports on a paper which suggests there may be complications with ONE method we use to determine past ocean temperature. Notwithstanding possible flaws in the methods of the paper, the article ignores significant evidence from other measurements and observations and tells us nothing directly about the severity of future and present climate change."

— 01 Nov 2017


[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.