In order to maintain coherence in the credibility ratings issued by scientists, we are providing a clear guide defining the meaning of each “overall credibility rating” level and ask reviewers to evaluate articles based on 6 criteria (Factual Accuracy, Scientific understanding, Logic/Reasoning, Precision/Clarity, Sources Quality, Fairness/Objectivity. Read our guidelines here: http://climatefeedback.org/process/#tit4).
Scientists contributing to our analyses are required to conform to high quality community standards upon sign up, which require them to comment only on claims related to their expertise. (read our community standards: http://climatefeedback.org/community-standards/ )
Climate Feedback selects articles and claims for review from a variety of media - across the political spectrum- according to their influence on social media (typically measured by Buzzsumo.com), the quantity or degree of claimed scientific evidence within the reporting and potential relevance to shaping public debate.
As stated on our Process page, 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.
1. The Australian’s coverage of Great Barrier Reef study creates perception that scientists are divided: https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/the-australian-coverage-great-barrier-reef-perception-scientists-divided-global-warming-graham-lloyd/
2. Investor’s Business Daily editorial misrepresents study to claim plants will prevent dangerous climate change https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/investors-business-daily-editorial-misrepresents-study-to-claim-plants-will-prevent-dangerous-climate-change/
3. New satellite measurements show sea level rise is accelerating, as CNN accurately reports https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/satellite-measurements-accelerating-sea-level-rise-cnn-accurately-reports-brandon-miller/
4. Grist article on an “Ice Apocalypse” mostly accurate, but doesn’t make the likelihood of that apocalypse clear enough to readers https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/antarctica-doomsday-glaciers-could-flood-coastal-cities-grist-eric-holthaus/
5. The Independent makes a giant leap in stating that modern global warming could be “worse than thought” based on a single study https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/independent-makes-giant-leap-global-warming-worse-than-thought-single-study-andrew-griffin/
6. Scientists explain what New York Magazine article on “The Uninhabitable Earth” gets wrong
7. Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/rush-limbaugh-falsely-claims-there-is-no-evidence-of-human-caused-global-warming/
8. Breitbart repeats blogger’s unsupported claim that NOAA manipulates data to exaggerate warming https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/breitbart-repeats-bloggers-unsupported-claim-noaa-manipulates-data-exaggerate-warming/
9. EPA’s Scott Pruitt incorrectly suggests climate change might not be “a bad thing” https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/epas-scott-pruitt-incorrectly-suggests-climate-change-might-not-bad-thing/
10. President Trump’s claim of growing ice does not reflect reality https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/president-trumps-claim-growing-ice-not-reflect-reality/