Scientists reactions to the US House Science Committee hearing on climate science
— 10 Apr 2017
Only four witnesses were invited to testify before the committee, which cannot be representative of all the expertise required to understand a field as vast as climate science. So ...
How the blogosphere spread and amplified the Daily Mail’s unsupported allegations of climate data manipulation
— 27 Mar 2017
Early last month, British tabloid the Daily Mail published an article accusing the former director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of rushing to pub...
The Daily Wire corrects story analyzed by scientists, but it’s still misleading
— 07 Mar 2017
While the most inaccurate statements have been edited, the scientists who reviewed the post indicate that the implication that the study undercuts confidence in the human cause of ...
Sensational claims of manipulated data in the Mail on Sunday are overblown
— 06 Feb 2017
"The “astonishing evidence” that David Rose purports to reveal in no way changes our understanding of modern warming or our best estimates of recent rates of warming. It does n..
IPSO decision ignores inaccuracies in The Spectator’s article on ocean acidification
— 02 Feb 2017
The article contains objectively inaccurate assertions on matters of fact—not opinion—and therefore does not meet the accuracy standards of IPSO’s Editors’ Code. By excusin...
Wall Street Journal articles on 2016 heat record send contradicting messages
— 27 Jan 2017
On January 18, NASA and NOAA released the data showing that 2016 was the warmest year on record in both datasets. All other major global surface temperature datasets, including the...
How to make sure a Q&A with a scientist doesn’t misrepresent science
— 04 Jan 2017
“When interviewing scientists, journalists need to make it clear to readers whether the resulting article is based on opinion or science. It is not sufficient to assume that an i...
When a sensational headline contradicts an article’s message
— 18 Oct 2016
"Sarah Knapton has written a reasonably well-balanced article, however, this article was placed under a misleading headline. The headline could just as easily have been: "Experts s..
Insight into the scientific credibility of The Guardian climate coverage
— 17 Oct 2016
Over the past two months, Climate Feedback has asked its network of scientists to review 5 widely read articles published by The Guardian. Three were found to be both accurate and ...
The most popular 2015 articles on climate published in Forbes are inaccurate and misleading
— 09 Dec 2015
Recently, scientists analyzed some of Forbes’ most influential climate articles for 2015. While one article was rated as highly accurate, two articles were found to be deeply ina...