Sierra Club National Magazine

Fear Factor: A Defense of NEW YORK’s Climate Doom Cover Story

2017-07-14

Let’s get some unpleasantries out of the way: Wallace-Wells’s story isn’t without its faults. In a lengthy discussion at Climate Feedback, a group of 17 scientists have identified what they say are inaccuracies in the piece. [...] And yet, as one scientist involved in the Climate Feedback dialogue, UCLA post-doc Daniel Swain, points out, “It is quantitatively true—and often underappreciated—that the likelihood of a ‘worse than expected’ climate future is actually higher than a ‘better than expected’ one.”

The Boston Globe

Blanket claim that climate models are flawed dismisses their key role

2017-03-27

Following Climate Feedback’s analysis, The Boston Globe invited us to write a short letter to the editor responding to Jacoby’s column. “As The Boston Globe’s Twitter account claims, #FactsMatter. To gain correct scientific understanding of how the world works, sound logic is also required.”

Computer World

Why fake news is a tech problem

2017-01-28

"The beauty of this approach is that each article is judged independently (instead of branding an entire publication as "bad"). [...] Better still, the site essentially teaches media criticism and skepticism from a scientific point of view."

Forbes

Climate Scientists Launch Brainy Attack On Inaccurate News

2017-01-27

“[Climate feedback] website's purpose goes beyond fact checking, because there are other forms of misleading information, such as cherry-picked half truths, biased information, rhetorical manipulation, and ill-defined terms.”

Union of Concerned Scientists

Lies Hurt. Facts Matter. And So Does Resistance.

2016-12-12

“Democracy depends on objectivity, evidence, and truth to inform the political process, and in our current political discourse, those things are being actively abused. [...] Dozens of fact-checking organizations have signed on to an international code of fact-checking conduct. There is also a new, vetted resource for fact-checking climate change stories [Climate Feedback], specifically. Very excited about this entry.”

Nature

Take the time and effort to correct misinformation

2016-12-06

"the scientific process doesn’t stop when results are published in a peer-reviewed journal. Wider communication is also involved, and that includes ensuring not only that information (including uncertainties) is understood, but also that misinformation and errors are corrected where necessary."

Poynter Institute

When it comes to fact-checking, why do politicians get all the attention?

2016-11-07

"...what if journalists are just thinking too narrowly about what makes a good fact check? For example, the website Climate Feedback uses line-by-line annotation to critique climate-related articles in the media — effectively fact-checking many statements at once. [...] “Any story like that that takes an issue, not necessarily a statement but an issue, that people are wondering about or don’t understand, and goes into the deep background of ‘why this is happening,’ that has all the hallmarks of a fact check, and that’s what we want to see more of,”"

University of California Newsroom

Can you trust what you read about climate change?

2016-08-01

"As Climate Feedback has started building up a body of article reviews, patterns are emerging: Some news sources consistently produce accurate stories on climate change, while others are consistently inaccurate."

Society of Environmental Journalists

Scientists Critique Media Reports on Climate

2016-06-01

"It’s unlikely to come across as just another press-bashing exercise by advocates for or against what generally is cast as the “mainstream” science on the issue. In fact, the new climate reporting “watchdog” group [...] is made up of more than 100 Ph.D. scientists, among them a fair sampling widely recognized and respected in climate science circles."

Poynter

Annotation might be the future of fact-checking

2016-05-26

"Climate Feedback, a scientist-led effort to "peer review" the world’s climate journalism, is closing in on its $30,000 crowdfunding target. A successful conclusion to the campaign would bolster one of the most prominent efforts yet to conduct fact-checking via web annotation."