Current AffairsTeaching Climate Change – The best way to teach someone about science is by encouraging them to doubt it…
"Recently, a conservative think tank called the Heartland Institute sent an elaborate booklet called “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to schoolteachers all over the country. Some have worried that, since it is a piece of “unscientific propaganda” containing false claims about climate science, it will “mislead tens of thousands of students.” But the scientists at Climate Feedback, a nonpartisan institution that evaluates claims about climate science in the media, had a different perspective. While giving the Heartland Institute’s report an “F” for accuracy, and thoroughly debunking its various claims, they didn’t simply tell teachers to throw the document away and forget it showed up. Instead, they said, “this book provides an opportunity for science teachers to teach their students about fallacious reasoning, as well as common misconceptions about climate science and the deceptive talking points that today floods their social media feeds.”"
IndependentClimate change doomsday warning of ‘rolling death smog’ and ‘perpetual war’ criticised by scientists
On the Climate Feedback website, 14 scientists rated its “scientific credibility” as low with some variously suggesting the article was “alarmist”, “unclear” or “misleading”.
Sierra Club National MagazineFear Factor: A Defense of NEW YORK’s Climate Doom Cover Story
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 Huffington PostNew York Times Readers Are Canceling Subscriptions Over Climate-Denying Writer
“I will support your newspaper no more,” Rahmstorf wrote to the Times in his letter, which he shared on Twitter Thursday. “Instead, I will give the money to ClimateFeedback.org, a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in climate change media coverage. It is much better invested there.”
The Boston GlobeBlanket claim that climate models are flawed dismisses their key role
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 WorldWhy fake news is a tech problem
"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."
ForbesClimate Scientists Launch Brainy Attack On Inaccurate News
“[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 ScientistsLies Hurt. Facts Matter. And So Does Resistance.
“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.”
NatureTake the time and effort to correct misinformation
"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 InstituteWhen it comes to fact-checking, why do politicians get all the attention?
"...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,”"