“Is this article consistent with the latest thinking and knowledge in science?”
“Would experts in this field endorse the main message of this article?”
These are the types of questions our “feedbacks” are designed to answer. If the feedback is positive, you can generally assume the information you’re reading is of high credibility. If it’s negative, however, you may want to read with extra care and attention — some of the information contained and conclusions reached are not consistent with science.
Washington Times article by Robert Malone and Peter Navarro relies on inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims about virus evolution, vaccine immunity, and COVID-19 vaccine safety
in Washington Times, by Robert Malone and Peter Navarro
"This article has inaccuracies throughout with a clear view to push an anti-vaccine agenda. The picture depicting a skull with eyes and nose made of coronaviruses in the shape of the U.S. is sensationalist. The opening line calls it Biden’s strategy. It was also Trump’s and is the strategy of every country and the WHO."
— 15 Aug 2021
CO2 coalition sponsored article in The Washington Times presents list of false and misleading statements about the impacts of CO2 and climate change
in The Washington Times, by Gregory Wrightstone
"This article recycles old tropes such as “it’s been warm before”, “CO2 levels have been higher in the past” (millions of years ago!), “CO2 is plant food”, “warming is good for ecosystems/humans”, “so far impacts are small, so they will remain small”, etc. All these pseudo-arguments have been addressed many times before (see examples here, here, and here). This article is clearly motivated, misleading and biased."
— 05 May 2021
Video promoted by John Stossel for Earth Day relies on incorrect and misleading claims about climate change
in Stossel TV, by John Stossel, Patrick Michaels, David Legates
"This video is misleading in so many ways it’s hard to know where to begin. For a start there’s a repeated assertion that climate “alarmists” won’t enter debate on climate change, but there are many examples of renowned climate scientists such as Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and David Karoly entering into debates with climate change denialists. Many scientists have found such debates to be unhelpful as they give the false impression of balance despite there being broad consensus among climate scientists..."
— 21 Apr 2021
Destruction of the Amazon forest very likely contributes to global warming, as accurately described in The National Geographic article
in National Geographic, by Craig Welch
"The article is good overall, although there are two small issues. First, the title seems to overestimate the results. The scientific study the National Geographic article is based on cannot account for all of the climate forcers, as there are no Amazon basin wide estimates (as clearly stated in the study). This drawback could potentially change the overall warming effect, and therefore the title seems to exaggerate."
— 23 Mar 2021
Atlantic ocean circulation system is slowing down, as accurately described in The New York Times article
in The New York Times, by Moises Velasquez-Manoff and Jeremy White
"This article is well-written, and the visuals are outstanding. It is a very strong piece of science communication. That being said, there is at least one error. The author mistakenly conflates the long-term warming hole with the shorter-term North Atlantic cold anomaly. The two phenomena have very different timescales and are likely driven by different mechanisms."
— 11 Mar 2021
Misleading Wall Street Journal opinion piece makes the unsubstantiated claim that the U.S. will have herd immunity by April 2021
in Wall Street Journal, by Marty Makary
"The article’s claim that the U.S. is near herd immunity rests on two numbers: 1) the detection of infections by testing (claimed to be 10 – 25 percent) and 2) the infection fatality rate (claimed to be 0.23 percent). Using the same number of deaths as the author indicates that 0.15%/0.6% = 25% of the U.S. population has been infected, rather than two-thirds as the author claims. Thus, the author’s argument that 55 – 66 percent of the U.S. population has already been infected and has immunity is not supported by available data."
— 26 Feb 2021
Breitbart article makes numerous false claims about the impacts of climate change, based on Global Warming Policy Foundation post
in Breitbart, by James Delingpole, Dr. Indur Goklany
"The article’s scientific credibility is very low. The author cherry-picks data, makes broad generalizations and characterizations based on incomplete or flimsy reasoning, and repeatedly misinterprets technological and economic progress in justifying false claims and misinformation minimizing global warming impacts."
— 12 Feb 2021
Video interview of Ian Plimer at Sky News falsely claims that a new study announces an incoming ice age, partly based on an incorrect Daily Mail headline
in Sky News, by Ian Plimer
"This video is chock full of false and misleading information, and presented in a way to make the correct scientific information seem like a farce. For example, the direct link between human emissions of carbon dioxide and global warming is very well established. The physics and chemistry of this link has been understood for well over 100 years, and science continues to affirm it."
— 20 Jan 2021
New York Post article makes speculative, unsupported claim that mutation could enable the virus causing COVID-19 to evade handwashing and mask-wearing
in New York Post, by Jackie Salo
"The preprint that the article focuses on actually says nothing about the most egregious claim made in the article: that the virus is evolving to get around hand-washing, masks, etc. This comes from a quote from someone who’s not an author on the preprint, giving an opinion about the preprint…on a topic not covered by the preprint."
— 08 Oct 2020
Article by The Daily Caller oversimplifies drivers of wildfires and downplays role of climate change
in The Daily Caller, by Chris White
"The causes of the increase in burned area in the western US in recent decades – and the record-setting fires of 2020 – are complex, driven by a mix of a changing climate, a 100-year legacy of overzealous fire suppression in forests adapted for frequent low-level fires, more people living in highly flammable wildland urban interface areas, and at times a counterproductive role of some environmental regulations. However, this article glosses over much of this complexity, presenting a simple but misleading narrative that land management rules enacted by the Clinton administration set the stage for the destructive fires we are experiencing today."
— 28 Sep 2020
 Note: These feedbacks do not constitute endorsements of the author’s political or economic ideology, rather they are assessments of the scientific foundations and reasoning of the argumentation contained within each article.