Our Workflow at a glance:


  1. Select an article for assessment, according to subject matter, relevance in current climate change discussion, and potential digital influence
  2. Call on scientists with relevant expertise to participate in article analysis
  3. Analyze selected article, with a focus on assessing (claimed) fact-based assertions and scientific reasoning
  4. Evaluate the article’s overall credibility against current state-of-the-art knowledge and thinking in climate science
  5. Summary & Feedback
  6. Help promote our analyses!


1. Select

Climate Feedback editors select articles for review that are the most viral on social media and/or are published in outlets with large readership. Either must contain potentially verifiable claims in the scientific realm.

We strive for our reviews to be representative of the spectrum of influential climate discussion in the media. We review articles and claims in a variety of media, without a priori perspective, regardless of whether they insightfully report on, exaggerate or downplay the consequences of climate change.

If you think we missed an important claim or article, you can suggest it for review here.


2. Invite reviewers

The editor in charge of overseeing the review process invites relevant experts to contribute to the review.


3. Article analysis

Reviewers are asked to comment on the article to indicate whether the facts underlying the reasoning are consistent with up-to-date scientific knowledge. Reviewers should represent the state of knowledge in the scientific literature, using strongly supported scientific theories and observations as references, and refrain from pointing to partial/isolated/weakly supported findings.

The primary objective of scientists should be to check the scientific accuracy of the facts and assumptions on which the article is based. However, their contributions need not be limited to fact-checking and could extend to:

  1. Adding Relevant Information: Signaling additional resources or information related to the text, providing context, or indicating a perspective based on a scientific publication or clinical experience can also be the purpose of a comment.
  2. Evaluating Scientific Reasoning: Misleading arguments are often based not on erroneous factual propositions, but on flawed/misleading reasoning or hidden and weakly supported assumptions. Reviewers are also invited to reflect on this aspect: promoting logic, scientific reasoning, and the fact that conclusions should be supported by the argument made…

Reviewers should pay attention to these “credibility criteria” to guide their evaluation:

  1. Factual Accuracy. Does the article build on scientifically accurate information and solid evidence?
  2. Scientific understanding. Beyond accurately describing basic observations, does the article provide a correct or a mistaken understanding of how the climate system works? Does it understand or misinterpret the significance of the observations?
  3. Context and limitations. If the article is discussing new research, is the article adequately discussing pre-existing relevant studies, and are the new results not overly simplified, overstated or over-hyped?
  4. Logic/Reasoning. Do the conclusions follow from the evidence? Are there gaps or leaps in the reasoning?
  5. Precision/Clarity. Does the article precisely refer to concepts as they are used by the scientific community? Or is there some confusion which might mislead the reader?
  6. Sources Quality. Does the article rely on adequate and credible sources (use of relevant/independent experts, studies) to back up important claims? Or is it relying on experts with a conflict of interest?
  7. Fairness/Objectivity. Does the article depict a complete or imbalanced view of the relevant science? Does it give precedence to certain sources without an appropriate reason for doing so (e.g. lacking the necessary expertise and/or credentials)?


4. Evaluation

To help readers better understand the comments made, we invite scientists to provide an assessment regarding the overall scientific credibility of the article. The following criteria are used to help guide the evaluation:

Suggested guidelines for the overall scientific credibility rating

Remember that we do not evaluate the opinion of the author, but instead the scientific accuracy of facts contained within the text, and the scientific quality of reasoning used.

  • +2 = Very High: No inaccuracies, fairly represents the state of scientific knowledge, well argued and documented, references are provided for key elements. The article provides insights to the reader about climate change mechanisms and implications, as well as limitations and important unknowns surrounding the evidence.
  • +1 = High: The article does not contain scientific inaccuracies and its conclusion follows from the evidence provided. While more detail would have been useful, readers are still accurately informed of the science.
  • 0 = Neutral: No significant errors, but not enough insight either to inform the reader. (Ex: Article does not misstate findings from study but does not point out research is needed to confirm findings; article doesn’t point out that unpublished research findings aren’t peer-reviewed…)
  • -1 = Low: The article contains significant scientific inaccuracies or misleading statements.
  • -2 = Very Low: The article contains major scientific inaccuracies for key facts supporting argumentation, and/or omits important information, and/or presents logical flaws in using information to reach conclusions.
  • n/a = Not Applicable: The article does not build on scientifically verifiable information (e.g. it is mostly about policy, politics or opinions).

The final Climate Feedback rating is the average of all the reviewers’ ratings; in cases when reviewers largely disagree no rating is issued and the review is left as ‘debated’.

Definition of the article-level tags/keywords

  • Accurate: free from factual errors, describes reality in a way that is consistent with available data/observations.
  • Inaccurate: contains statement of fact in direct contradiction with available observations/data.
  • Insightful: offers a deep understanding of the issue based on accurate information and proper context that clarifies the implications of observations.
  • Misleading: offers an incorrect impression on some aspect(s) of the science, leaves the reader with false understanding of how things work, for instance by omitting necessary background context.
  • Biased: holds some ideas (persons) as true (right) without proper justification, lack of objectivity, ideological.
  • Unbiased: not biased, impartial, weights evidence for/against ideas
  • Sound reasoning: conclusion follows from the evidence presented.
  • Flawed reasoning: conclusion does not follow from the evidence presented.
  • Cherry-picking: highlights only a subset of all the available relevant evidence that seem to confirm a particular conclusion, ignoring a significant portion of evidence that would contradict it.
  • Exaggerating: overstates / exaggerates the risks of climate change.
  • Inappropriate sources: relies on low credibility sources, provides insufficient evidence in support of claims made.
  • Imprecise/Unclear: uses ill-defined terms or lacks specifics so that one cannot unambiguously know what is meant without making additional unstated assumptions.
  • Clickbait headline: article does not appropriately support its title.
  • Conflates facts and opinions: presents opinion as fact or fact as opinion.
  • Lack of context: lack of observations or explanations that would change the reader’s takeaway.
  • Undisclosed conflict of interest: article fails to disclose a conflict of interest with a strong likelihood of influencing a source’s conclusions.
  • Misrepresentation of sources (strawman): Substitutes a misrepresentation of a source’s conclusion for its actual conclusion, often in order to make it easier to discredit the idea of an “opponent.”
  • Overstates scientific confidence: Presents a conclusion as conclusive while the hypothesis is still being investigated and there remains genuine scientific uncertainty about it.

Methodology adapted from recommendations by the Foundation for Critical Thinking


5. Summary & Feedback

After the review process is complete, the editor writes a summary of the most salient points brought by the scientists, which is promoted on our website, across our social platforms, and shared with key media and scientific partners.

The Climate Feedback editor provides feedback to the journalists and/or editors of the outlet of the original article reviewed.


6. Publicize

You can help us amplify the voice of science by following us on social media, sharing our content and signing-up to our email notifications!


We aim for our “feedbacks” to be as accurate and up-to-date as possible. If we discover a mistake has been made, we will correct it as soon as possible and a note will be added on the original item. If you think we’ve made an error or missed some relevant information, contact us.

Suggest an item to review

If you wish to submit a suggestion of an article or claim to review, please use this online form. Please note that we focus on reviewing claims and articles that are scientifically verifiable and that reach large audiences.