“Climate Feedback is a voluntary initiative of well-known and respected scientists reviewing climate change articles for accuracy, whose first work came in 2015.
Among the articles reviewed: The Wall Street Journal op-ed on rising sea levels, which was described as “grossly” misleading to readers; and, on the other side, a highly cited New York Magazine article that the reviewing scientists said exaggerated how bad climate change could get.”
Scientific studies show that climate change is already contributing to increased heat-related mortality and global warming will further increase health outcomes related to heat stress. Reports that take into account the ensemble of scientific publications show that climate change is overall having negative consequences for human societies and ecosystems, contrary to what cherry-picking can lead some to believe.
This article falsely attributes quotes to NASA climate scientist James Hansen, when these statements are actually the opinions of others. It also misrepresents 1988 projections of global warming produced by Hansen and his colleagues, which were, in reality, accurate.
Climate Feedback has received accreditation by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at The Poynter Institute for the second year. Climate Feedback is the first and only accredited organization pioneering a community approach to “fact-checking”: crowdsourcing the evaluation of information credibility from a network of scientists with relevant expertise. The IFCN is “committed to promoting excellence … Continued
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 we have asked for additional scientists to weigh in on some noteworthy, scientifically verifiable statements made during the hearing to provide a broader and more representative view of the state of scientific knowledge.
Background Information The full original video and all testimonies can be found here Additional documentation Opening statement by Lamar Smith (text available here) Opening statement by Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) (text available here) Transcript of some noteworthy, scientifically verifiable statements From the opening statements and testimonies Key statements from Eddie Bernice … Continued
“The article speaks about scientific questions under an “opinion” banner—as if questions about the role of CO2 in the Earth system could be a matter of opinions. For the major final conclusion “With more CO2 in the atmosphere, the challenge [to feed additional 2.5 billion people] can and will be met.”, there is absolutely no scientific credibility, nor support in the scientific literature—it is pure fantasy.”
“This article is very interesting because it exemplifies a highly-misleading rhetorical practice that is effective, frequently used, but not easily recognized by the public: “paltering”… A successful palterer will try to avoid being untruthful in each of his/her utterances, but will nonetheless put together a highly misleading picture based on selective reporting, half-truths, and errors of omission…”
Axios Fact-checking Pruitt’s warming comments 8 Feb. 2018 “Go deeper: Climate scientists roundly refuted with very detailed responses an article in May 2016 that said in “many ways global warming will be a good thing.” Snopes Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 ‘Prove’ That Global Warming is a Myth? 25 Oct. 2017 “The first … Continued
Climate Feedback produces analyses and evaluations – we call them “feedbacks” – of influential reporting on climate change. Our feedbacks are already helping readers around the world distinguish between news stories based on science and those that only claim to be. Last week we published an in-depth review of the latest article by Bjørn Lomborg … Continued
